Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information is in the possession of his Department concerning the number of hydrogen bomb tests carried out in the world in the last two years and the dangers arising there-from; and what official information from foreign Governments he has concerning hydrogen bomb tests to be carried out during this year, in addition to the proposed British tests.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Official statements by the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have acknowledged one such test series for each country. The number of weapons tested in each series has not been disclosed.
As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) on 28th February, and Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on 5th March.
The Answer to the third part of the Question is, None, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not known that an accumulation of these explosions will constitute a grave danger to mankind? Is it not also clear from the Foreign Secretary's Answer that we do not know how

much poison has been distributed in the atmosphere as a result of what has taken place in the last two years? Is it not crazy, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government should add to the potential danger? Ought we not to devote the whole of our energies to trying to stop such tests?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that we should devote a great part of our energies to seeking nuclear disarmament in the proper context. As I have previously said, the tests proposed to be undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will add a negligible proportion to the danger. In any event, our information is that the existing danger as a result of the tests which have taken place to date and the danger resulting from a continuance of those tests at the same scale as previously are in themselves negligible also.

Mr. G. Wilson: Has the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend been drawn to a demonstration given to Members of both Houses of Parliament at Harwell last year, which seemed, through the medium of evaporated rain water, to indicate that the amount of radio-activity in the atmosphere is at present less than that of a luminous wrist watch?

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what scientific advice he took before giving an assurance to the Japanese Government that British hydrogen bomb tests in the area of Christmas Island would in no way contaminate fish.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Responsibility for these tests rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who was consulted on the terms of the Note addressed to the Japanese Ambassador and who is advised on these matters by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

Mr. Swingler: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the experts who gave the advice had examined the Japanese evidence on the subject? Does he not know that there is considerable Japanese evidence that previous tests have caused widespread contamination to fish, with danger to the population in Japan? Can he say to what extent the information which is available in Japan has been studied by his scientific advisers?

Mr. Lloyd: Questions on the technical aspect of the matter should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. The hon. Gentleman should study the circumstances under which the tests are to take place. They should be a good deal safer than previous tests.

Mr. Younger: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the scientific information which he has gives an assurance that fish which may be in the area which has been proclaimed dangerous and may subsequently be caught, either in the area after the ban has been lifted or elsewhere after the fish have moved, will be free from contamination? Is he able to give an assurance on that point?

Mr. Lloyd: I am told that in the circumstances envisaged for the tests there should be no contamination at all of fish.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make available in the Library English translations of documents circulated by Her Majesty's Government to the Japanese about our tests of the hydrogen bomb in the Pacific, and also any information that has been sent officially to British possessions in the Pacific on this problem.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Note of 7th January addressed to all foreign diplomatic missions in London was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 11th February. I am arranging for copies of my Note to the Japanese Ambassador of 12th February to be placed in the Library. I am informed that apart from copies of Sir Anthony Eden's statement in the House of 7th June, 1956, and of the notices to mariners and airmen about the boundaries of the danger area, the information sent to Governments of the British Pacific Territories has concerned details of the operation which for reasons of security cannot be disclosed. The information given in the notices to mariners and airmen is covered in the Note of 7th January already available.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that, because of reasons of security, subjects of Britain in Pacific Islands are not aware of the exact spot where these tests are to take place—Sir William Penney is the only person who knows the exact spot—and

that that in itself is a danger to the support of those Pacific peoples for the British Government?

Mr. Lloyd: The most meticulous precautions will be taken to see that the safety of no British subject, or any other person, is in danger.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has given to our Embassy in Japan to explain why we are using the Pacific Ocean for hydrogen bomb tests; and what compensation will be paid to Pacific fishermen for loss of fishing grounds.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As regards the first part of the Question, no special instructions have been given. The Japanese Government and people are aware of the care we have taken to choose a test site well away from inhabited areas.
As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 11th February.

Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that it is rather cynical for the so-called free and Christian world to be using an island called Christmas Island to explode these bombs, and that people living in the Pacific Ocean have already protested to the United Nations and to our Foreign Office about contamination caused in the past? Is the Minister still maintaining, against all evidence, that there will be no contamination? If so, why not explode the bomb in the Atlantic Ocean?

Mr. Lloyd: There are no permanent inhabitants on Christmas Island, and the site chosen for the test is some 4,000 miles from Japan.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that 40 per cent. of the people of Japan, or 70 per cent. of the electorate, have protested against the British hydrogen bomb tests, why the official bulletin "British Opinion", published by the British Embassy at Tokio on 6th February, contained a statement that the protests made by the Japanese against these tests were helping the Communist cause.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I assume that the figures to which the hon. Member refers


are based on the number of signatures which the Japan Council for the Prohibition of Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs claims to have collected in 1955 to a resolution calling for a ban on atomic and hydrogen bombs in general and not to any protest specifically directed against British tests. The hon. Member has greatly oversimplified a passage in the bulletin which I consider to be fair comment. It does not suggest that the official Japanese protests are Communist inspired.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that some hon. Members are getting letters from well-informed and friendly Japanese who are trying to bring British opinion to realise that in the struggle between Communism and the free world the continuation of these tests by the free world is losing the friendship of Asia? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is no risk at all, because I am of the opinion that he cannot do that?

Mr. Lloyd: I only wish there had been comparable agitation against the Soviet tests——

Mr. Davies: There has been.

Mr. Lloyd: —which, according to my information, there has not been. I wish that that agitation had been given the same publicity in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

United Kingdom Policy

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent official statement on Middle East policy made by President Eisenhower, he will state the extent to which it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to resist Communist aggression in the Middle East.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government have welcomed President Eisenhower's proposals. They are fully determined to cooperate with their allies in resisting Communist aggression in the Middle East.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the Foreign Secretary's reply mean that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the commitment under the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 has been extended by the content of the Eisenhower declaration?

Mr. Lloyd: The Tripartite Declaration of 1950 did not deal expressly with the question of Communist aggression. It dealt with the question of the violation of frontiers and armistice lines. Of course, we have an important obligation in this matter under the Bagdad Pact.

Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the statement which he has made is an exceedingly serious one? Does he mean that, in the event of President Eisenhower, in the terms of his own policy as suggested, and Congress deciding that a nation has been threatened or has been the victim of an act of aggression by a nation under the control of international Communism, that decision automatically involves us?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I do not think so. I think that it is a matter for us to decide in each case the extent to which we consider ourselves bound. What I have said is that we are determined to co-operate with our allies in resisting Communist aggression, but we, of course, shall decide, as also will our allies, no doubt, and retain the right to decide in what circumstances we are involved.

Mr. Bevan: Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in the first part of his statement that we supported the Eisenhower doctrine on the Middle East? Is it not part of that doctrine also that the United States will decide whether the victim is a victim of aggression or the threat of aggression by a nation under the control of international Communism—which is a most precise judicial statement, of course?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that there is anything inconsistent in what I have said. I have said that we welcome President Eisenhower's proposals as giving an indication of the intention of the United States to resist Communist aggression in that part of the world, and that nothing that I have said deprives Her Majesty's Government at the time of the right to decide upon the action to be taken by us.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in view of the refusal of President Eisenhower and the United States Administration to involve themselves in our quarrels in the Middle East, whether we can have an assurance that we shall not be dragged into theirs?

Mr. Lloyd: I should have thought that resistance to Communist aggression in the Middle East is also a British interest.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not the obligation of the Government, so far as we understand it, to act in co-operation with the United Nations to resist aggression? Have not we now got a definition of aggression which makes it extremely difficult, when we introduce these qualitative terms, to say which kind of aggression it is?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that nothing that I have said has been inconsistent with our obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a specific question about the definition of aggression, that is a matter with which I will try to deal.

Tripartite Declaration

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the statements made by the Governments of the United States of America and France at the meeting of the representatives of these countries and the United Kingdom on 29th October, 1956, by which these Governments agreed that the Tripartite Declaration was no longer applicable to an attack by Israel on Egypt.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that the Government have told us on four occasions recently, including last week, that the United States has agreed that the Tripartite Declaration was not applicable to Egypt? Does he also recall that only a few months before the meetings on 28th and 29th October, the then Prime Minister went to Washington to decide how the Tripartite Declaration could be implemented in respect of all the countries of the Middle East, and that the President called these meetings to implement the pledges then given? Does he not understand that no one can believe what the Government say unless the statement of the United States is published?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is very ready to think evil, but the facts are as they have been stated—that, at that time and in those circumstances, in view of the statements repeatedly made by the Government of Egypt about not accepting

the implications of the Tripartite Declaration, it was not considered applicable in the event of an attack by Israel on Egypt.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify that statement? Is he now saying that in future, so far as the United States Government are concerned, they consider that the provisions of the 1950 Declaration are applicable to all the countries of the Middle East, including Egypt?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a Question on the Tripartite Declaration on the Order Paper for answer later.

Mr. Bevan: Are we to understand that an attack by Israel on Egypt does not invoke the Tripartite Declaration, because Egypt does not consider that she is affected by it, and do we understand that if Egypt attacks Israel a similar interpretation will be placed on it? If so, what on earth is the Declaration about?

Mr. Lloyd: I have never said anything of the sort. As I have said, we still regard the Tripartite Declaration as applicable to an attack upon Israel. We also think that the Declaration is applicable to an attack by Israel upon certain other countries, but Egypt has deliberately said that she does not wish to receive any benefits from the Declaration, as she cannot accept the interference with her sovereignty which that would involve. There is another aspect of the Declaration, dealing with arms control, which we consider is applicable to the deliveries of arms to all the countries.

Arab Legion (Cost)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the cost to public funds over the four years ended 31st December, 1956, of the gifts in cash and kind given to the Arab Legion.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In the period from April, 1953, to 31st December, 1956, the cash subsidy to the Arab Legion, paid in accordance with our obligations under the Anglo-Jordan Treaty 1948, amounted to nearly £34 million. In the same period maintenance issues of equipment worth some £480,000 were made to certain units of the Arab Legion without payment. I am circulating detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain exactly what the British nation got out of this expenditure?

Mr. Lloyd: We were carrying out a treaty obligation entered into in 1948.

Following are the figures:

Payments to the Arab Legion from the United Kingdom subsidy:



£


1953–54
8,889,485


1954–55
9,117,610


1955–56
9,115,338


1st April, 1956-31st December, 1956
6,816,166


Total
£33,938,599

Issues in kind:

During 1953–54 maintenance issues of equipment were made to the value of £479,557.

Saudi Arabia (British Firms)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Pakistani High Commissioner, acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia, has issued a notice to British firms requiring a declaration from them that they are not trading with Israel before these firms can receive import licences from the Saudi Arabian Government; and what action he therefore proposes to take in protection of the British interests involved.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am not aware that the Pakistan High Commissioner has issued any notice to British firms in the terms referred to by the hon. Member, but a notice has been issued requiring firms to make a declaration that they have no investments or other similar interests in Israel. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has been assured by the Pakistan High Commissioner that this requirement is not intended to impose any additional restrictions on British firms trading with Saudi Arabia. As the House will be aware, the Pakistan High Commissioner is acting in this matter on behalf of the Saudi Arabian Government, for whose interests in the United Kingdom he is responsible.

Sir L. Plummer: Does the Foreign Secretary not appreciate that the Pakistan Government are scarcely neutral in this matter, in so far as they have taken an active part in proposing sanctions against

Israel? Is he further aware that I have in my hand a photostat copy of the statement issued by the Pakinstan Government on 15th January this year, laying down five conditions which bar British firms who are having dealings with Israel from dealing with Saudi Arabia? Further, is it not now clear that the Government's policy of constantly saying, before the Suez troubles took place, that they neither condoned nor approved the Arab boycott, was an incitement to the Arab countries to go on with this boycott? Will not the Government now become true friends of Israel and take the necessary steps to stop this attack on British trade and on Israel itself?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that anyone can suggest that we have given any encouragement to this boycott. We have disapproved of it from the beginning. The Pakistan High Commissioner is acting in this matter as a representative of Saudi Arabia. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says about Pakistan Government policy.

Soviet Proposals

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been reached and action taken regarding the Soviet proposals for the Middle East made in the Soviet Notes of 12th February, 1957.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing yet to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 19th February.

Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman particularly consider the proposal that further supplies of arms from either the Western or the Eastern side should be ended, and that there should be some co-ordination of economic aid to the nations of the Middle East?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, these matters will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Trust Territories (United Kingdom Vote)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Trusteeship Council voted on the Soviet resolution proposing a time limit of three


to five years for the achievement of independence by most Trust Territories; and what reasons were given for his vote.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): The United Kingdom Representative on the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly opposed a Soviet resolution which recommended a time limit for the attainment of independence or self-government of Trust Territories. The words "within three to five years" which appeared in the preamble and operative paragraph 1 of the Soviet draft resolution, were changed, on a proposal by Syria, to "in the near future" and "at an early date" respectively, before the Soviet resolution came to a vote. The wording of the resolution as it was adopted by the Fourth Committee is given on pages 11 and 12 of United Nations document A/3554.
With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to page 3 of United Nations document A/C.4/SR.639, where there is a summary of what was said by the United Kingdom Representative. Briefly, the United Kingdom Representative said that it was impossible for an administering authority conscientiously to declare an estimate of the period of time required for the attainment of self-government.
Both the documents I have referred to are in the Library of the House.

Mr. Swingler: Did the United Kingdom Representative make clear what was the Government's policy on the achievement of independence? Is it not the Government's policy that the Trust Territories should achieve independence, and in those circumstances why was not their view put forward by the Government on the period of time in which that could be attained?

Mr. Harvey: I think that is a different question. This was a matter of accepting a firm time-table, and, as the United Kingdom Representative made quite clear, we could not conscientiously do that.

Mr. Russell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Colonial Office and the colonial administrations in the Trust Territories concerned are far better judges of when the time is likely to be ripe for independence than the whole of

the United Nations, who do not know anything about it?

Mr. Harvey: Yes, Sir; I do.

Anti-Slavery Convention

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking for the establishment of a United Nations Anti-Slavery Commission.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks of my hon. Friend the then Joint Under-Secretary when replying to the Adjournment debate on Anti-Slavery Conventions on 21st December last. I have nothing to add.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the Minister aware that the Arab slave trade is booming at the moment, supported nobly by Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia? Is he further aware that the patrols which the British Government organised along the Arabia-African slave routes in the 1930s put slavery down? Will not he now give support—and ask his right hon. and learned Friend to give support—to the resuscitation of an international organisation to put an end to this disgraceful and barbaric trade?

Mr. Harvey: Yes, Sir, but the point is that we are awaiting a United Nations initiative in this matter at the present time. The initiative does not rest with us.

Mr. Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend stimulate that initiative? Does not he realise that there is uneasiness in all sections of the country, and not only about the Middle East? There are parts of South America where slavery is carried on to a serious degree, and all the evidence shows that it is on the increase in various parts of the world.

Mr. Harvey: I note what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Younger: Can the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "awaiting United Nations initiative"? Does that mean that we are awaiting some move by the Secretary-General? Is he aware that most initiatives in the United Nations have to be taken by leading members of the United Nations?

Mr. Harvey: If the right hon. Gentleman will study the Answer which I gave


one of his hon. Friends on 28th January he will see that we are unable to ratify the Convention until certified copies in all five official languages of the United Nations have been received from the United Nations Secretariat—and they have not yet been received.

United Kingdom Votes (Parliamentary Questions)

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he is not prepared to answer Questions put to him asking which way the British delegate has been instructed to vote on major issues at the United Nations; and if he will now alter that practice.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The instructions which I send to the United Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations and to all Her Majesty's representatives abroad are, by their nature, confidential. The Answer to the second part of the Question is therefore, No, Sir.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman help the House in this matter, in that before these votes the matter is hypothetical; just before they are cast it is held to be secret; while they are being cast it is held to be too critical to intervene; and afterwards it is too late? Is he aware that the consequence of this is that the United Nations machinery is becoming something of a mockery in this House which, while it may please some of his hon. Friends, is extremely undesirable?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot understand the hon. Member's point. The responsibility for giving instructions must rest with the Government of the day.

Algeria

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he gave instructions to the British delegate at the United Nations to vote against the inclusion of the Algerian question on the agenda of the General Assembly.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Member seems to have been misinformed. No such instructions were sent. The Resolution to inscribe the Algerian question on the agenda of the General Assembly was passed without dissension and without a vote.

Mr. Benn: Does not that illustrate the difficulty in which hon. Members find themselves in this matter? May I, at any rate, congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this occasion, and hope that it leads in the future to further opposition to the French colonial war in Algeria?

Mr. Lloyd: The only comment I wish to make on that is that the hon. Gentleman, before putting down Questions, should inform himself on the facts.

Disarmament Sub-Committee

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by which Minister the Government will be represented at the forthcoming meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs will lead the United Kingdom Delegation at the forthcoming meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee. I hope to be present myself at the opening meeting on 18th March.

Mr. Warbey: I welcome the decision of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be present. May I ask him whether, if rapid progress is made—as we all hope it will be—he will himself be prepared to intervene again at a later stage in order to bring the discussions to the point of agreement?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly I should be prepared to intervene at a later stage, but I am not certain that my intervention would have the result which the hon. Member envisages.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will submit to the Disarmament Sub-Committee a draft disarmament convention embracing such measures of disarmament, inspection and control as represent common ground between the major Powers.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Certainly not at the outset, Sir. There is not yet sufficient common ground between the major Powers to enable Her Majesty's Government to draw up a draft disarmament convention on this basis. They sincerely hope, however, that the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee will achieve sufficient progress to make this possible.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his reply is rather surprising to those who have studied the proposals put forward by the various Powers at various times? Will he not at least say that the British Government are prepared to go in for as much disarmament as can be agreed on and controlled, and which will not alter substantially the balance between the major Powers?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, it is absolutely true that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to enter into either a comprehensive agreement or a partial agreement. The only reason why I said "Certainly not at the outset" is that I am not satisfied that to try to prepare a draft disarmament convention at the beginning of the conference would be a wise way for the conference to begin its work.

Mr. Paget: Since the Government's economic failure has imposed upon us the unilateral disarmament which we are seeing on all sides, is there not something to be said for trying to persuade someone else to join in?

Mr. Lloyd: I thought that one of the opinions held by hon. Members opposite was that, for example, the Russian reduction in armaments was something to be followed by us. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that that is a failure of Russian economic policy?

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that this suggestion is not the wisest way to begin. Would it not be a good thing if the disarmament convention began with a clear statement of what agreement has already been reached in order that we might consider what additional agreement could be reached? Does it follow that it is wise to start off with the maximum confusion and disagreement first, rather than to find out what common ground exists at the beginning and try to add to it later on?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Obviously one would attempt to begin this conference by stating the measure of agreement already attained. That is one reason why I propose to attend the first meeting myself. We want to see whether from that we can develop discussions so as to widen agreement.

Permanent Force

Mr. Finlay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of the discussions initiated by Her Majesty's Government concerning effective standing forces for the United Nations; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to press for effective military forces to be permanently placed at the disposal of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 4th February.

Mr. Finlay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if the Israelis are to be forced to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, the formation of some kind of permanent force by the United Nations becomes an imperative duty and responsibility on its part?

Mr. Lloyd: We have always hoped that from the United Nations Emergency Force would come something of a permanent nature.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that events have shown that the establishment of such a force is logically the next step in the evolution of the United Nations as an effective international force, and that it would receive a wide measure of support from all parties?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. However, there are certain technical difficulties from the point of view of the United Nations.

Mr. Bevan: As Her Majestys Govment's policy has not been successful, because, as we understand from the answers to several Questions, we wished the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Aqaba and the Gaza Strip to be accompanied by the intervention of the United Nations Force, to prevent a repetition of what happened before, what pause is now to take place between the two events? Has there been agreement or discussion about that?

Mr. Lloyd: That is going a good deal wider than the terms of the Question on the Order Paper. I do not accept for a moment that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter has been unsuccessful. I understand that as the Israeli forces withdraw they will be relieved by the United Nations Force.

Mr. Bevan: I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say, in reply to several Questions a few weeks ago—and the Prime Minister backed him up the following week—that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it would be desirable that, while Israel could not attach conditions to her withdrawal, nevertheless provisions for her safety should take place simultaneously with her withdrawal?

Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly what I understand is to happen; that the United Nations Emergency Force is to take over the positions in the Gaza Strip and at Aqaba.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In circumstances where, seemingly, we have no control over the policy of the Assembly of the United Nations, is it appropriate that the Government should so readily agree to the establishment of a permanent standing force by the United Nations?

Mr. Lloyd: What I said was that I hoped there would emerge from the United Nations Emergency Force a permanent force to be used for police purposes. That would require certain statutes as to how that force was to be used.

Mr. Usborne: In the interests of getting something permanent, are not there two factors which are absolutely cardinal? First, that the members of this so-called permanent force should be individually and directly recruited by the United Nations, and not be contingents seconded by sovereign States which could Withdraw their contingents; and, secondly, that there should be some territory which would be a permanent base from which this United Nations constabulary could operate, or to which it could fall back if it had to be withdrawn from some other part of the world?

Mr. Lloyd: It is precisely because of the complications introduced by both points which the hon. Member has raised

that I do not think that at the moment we should give more than general support to the idea.

Trusteeship Council (Non-Administering Members)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the method of nomination for the election of non-administering members of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Under Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, non-administering members of the Trusteeship Council are elected by secret ballot, and there are no nominations.

Mr. Russell: Is it not rather extraordinary that among the non-administering Powers there is no European nation except Russia? How does that position arise?

Mr. Harvey: That is another question.

Secretary-General (Visit to Hungary)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a visit is to be paid to Hungary by the Secretary-General of the United Nations organisation in the near future, in accordance with the United Nations resolution.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No specific recommendation has been made by the General Assembly of the United Nations that the Secretary-General should visit Hungary. He himself offered to go there. The Hungarian Government rejected as "inappropriate" one date, 16th December, proposed by the Secretary-General and said that they would propose another one later. They have not yet done so.

Mr. Bellenger: Are we to assume from that reply that in the case of a nation which flouts the authority of the United Nations because she is supported by Russian tanks and guns the United Nations is to do nothing? If that proceeds further, would it not create cynicism in the minds of many people who have watched the United Nations' action in the case of Israel and of other countries?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that this is an example of the "double standard" which has caused cynicism in a good many minds already.

Mr. H. Morrison: Would it not be possible to refer to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations the question of how soon self-government and democratic Parliamentary Government are to be restored to Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Estonia?

Mr. Lloyd: It is certainly an interesting suggestion.

Egypt and Israel

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the United States Administration that our two countries should jointly move a resolution at the General Assembly calling upon Egypt to comply with previous resolutions of the Security Council asking her to terminate the state of war with Israel, end the blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, and open the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, as a condition precedent to Israel complying with the General Assembly Resolution on the withdrawal of Israeli forces.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It would appear that Israel is now complying with General Assembly resolutions calling for the withdrawal of her forces. In the circumstances, the question of conditions precedent does not seem to arise.

Mr. Zilliacus: While admitting, of course, that events have outstripped this Question, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary does not think that we should press for Egypt to put herself in accord with the Charter before United Nations forces are withdrawn?

Mr. Lloyd: We certainly hope that United Nations forces will not be withdrawn until the conditions for a real settlement exist.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the United States Administration and the United Nations organisation that bullying of Israel is no substitute for a firm and united policy towards Colonel Nasser and his Soviet backers?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that all Governments should have a firm and united policy towards the problems of that area.

Enforcement Action

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose that the General Assembly

of the United Nations should request the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the question of whether the General Assembly is legally competent to call upon member States to take enforcement action, in view of the fact that, according to Article 11 of the Charter, the General Assembly must refer any such question to the Security Council, and that it is the latter, alone, which the Charter designates in Article 24 and Chapter VII as the body competent to take decisions on enforcement action.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a reference of this matter to the International Court of Justice since it is common knowledge that resolutions of the General Assembly in whatever terms they may be framed have no mandatory or obligatory force.
I agree that the Security Council is the body competent under the Charter to take decisions on enforcement action.

Mr. Zilliacus: In view of that Answer, will not the Foreign Secretary make it clear at the General Assembly that that body has not the right under the Charter in any circumstances to recommend enforcement action? This is a very important issue which may upset the whole balance of the Charter.

Mr. Lloyd: I find myself, somewhat unusually, in agreement with the hon. Member. I think that the Assembly has gone wrong in this matter. To he quite fair, I think that part of the reason it went wrong was because of some of the "Uniting for Peace" procedure—invented, I think, in 1950.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify his Answer a little? Does he not agree that although primary responsibility for these matters, of course, rests with the Security Council, there are certain circumstances in which the Assembly has obligations in respect of calling on its members, not necessarily in a mandatory way, to do something about an act of aggression? Is he now seeking to go back on that principle, which has been adopted by all our friends and allies and ourselves, at least since 1950?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the Assembly can make recommendations, but I


certainly do not think many people would have been prepared to sign the original Charter had they thought that the General Assembly was to be a body charged with carrying out mandatory or obligatory functions.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in discussions about the Charter at San Francisco the very reason advanced for setting up the Security Council was that it was felt that the decisions of the Assembly should not be mandatory? Will he make that clear?

Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh) will have done that. I certainly agree with her.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY

Relief of Refugees (United Kingdom Contributions)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what financial contributions Her Majesty's Government have made to date to the various funds for the relief of Hungarian refugees.

Mr. Ian Harvey: As the Answer is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind that, although the more spectacular aspects of the Hungarian refugee problem have now passed away, the problem still remains, and will he consider very carefully any application for help that may come from the Austrian Government, as a large number of Hungarian refugees are still living in very bad conditions in Austria?

Mr. Harvey: I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend to bear that in mind.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that British refugees from Egypt are getting as much help, both from voluntary sources and from the Government, as are Hungarian refugees in this country?

Mr. Harvey: That is another question, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put it down, I will endeavour to answer it.

Following is the Answer:
Her Majesty's Government have contributed £20,000 to the Austrian Government's Fund for Hungarian refugees; £15,000 to the United Nations Secretary-General's Fund for Hungarian refugees (which sum has since been paid over to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees by the Secretary-General); and £40,000 to the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration, who have been mainly responsible for the movement of Hungarian refugees from Austria. The contribution of 100 million French francs made by the Council of Europe to the Austrian Government's fund included approximately £18,000 from United Kingdom public funds.
The total payment to foreign funds is thus about £93,000. In addition, as the House was informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 31st January, Her Majesty's Government are spending some £230,000 on the resettlement of refugees in this country. Her Majesty's Government are also paying for the transport from Austria to the United Kingdom of some 4,500 Hungarian refugees at an estimated cost of £32,000.
The total of all the above sums is approximately £355,000.

Refugees (Transport to United Kingdom)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the cost of transporting Hungarian refugees from Austria to Great Britain; how much of this cost was paid by the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration; and when and why the movements ceased.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Of the 19,000 Hungarian refugees who have so far entered the United Kingdom, 12,615 were transported by the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration at, I understand, a cost of £135,000. In addition, the Committee has moved some 3,600 miners at the request and expense of the National Coal Board, the cost being about £40,000. Smaller parties of refugees have been brought to this country by various private organisations, and I am not in a position to inform the right hon. Member of the costs incurred by these organisations.
The large-scale movement of Hungarian refugees to this country was suspended towards the middle of December because of accommodation difficulties. In January Her Majesty's Government announced their willingness to receive another 5,000;


but on 25th January the Inter-Governmental Committee informed us that it was unable to finance the movement of more of these refugees—of whom 550 had been moved—until agreement had been reached on financial responsibility. The remaining 4,450 are therefore being brought to this country by Her Majesty's Government at a cost of about £32,000.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Am I right in understanding that Her Majesty's Government paid about £40,000, or one-third of the cost of the £135,000 in respect of the refugees brought here from Hungary?

Mr. Harvey: That is correct.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Joint Under-Secretary understand that the Government would have a great deal of support from hon. Members on both sides of the House if they would join this most useful organ of Commonwealth and European co-operation? Could not they be a little more generous about the transport of these Hungarians to this country?

Mr. Harvey: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says about joining this organisation. It is not the policy of the Government to change their decision on that issue. Frankly, I do not think that the Government can be regarded as having been ungenerous in the treatment of these refugees.

British Legation, Budapest (Police Action)

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the action of the Hungarian authorities on 25th February at the British Legation in Budapest; and whether any British subjects were arrested.

Mr. Ian Harvey: On 25th February, uniformed and plain clothes police, operating in pairs in the vicinity of Her Majesty's Legation, Budapest, took away for questioning about one hundred and fifty persons, the majority of whom had visited the Legation. No advance notice of this action was given. The Legation was not cordoned off nor, as far as is known, were any British subjects involved.

Sir J. Hutchison: According to the reply which my hon. Friend has

given, so far as is known no British subject was involved. Surely that needs some further investigation. Does not the action taken by the Hungarian authorities represent an infringement of diplomatic immunities and practice?

Mr. Harvey: The Hungarian Minister in London was requested to call at the Foreign Office on 28th February and was asked to obtain an explanation of the action of the Hungarian Government. That he undertook to do. He was also informed that Her Majesty's Government hoped that the action would not be continued or repeated. No reply has yet been received to these representations. I shall be happy to inform my hon. Friend when it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RESETTLEMENT FUND FOR REFUGEES)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to which European resettlement funds for refugees Her Majesty's Government has contributed in accordance with Recommendation 75 of 1955 of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Ian Harvey: The Recommendation to which the hon. Member refers deals with the Council of Europe Resettlement Fund for National Refugees and Overpopulation in Europe. Her Majesty's Government have not contributed to this Fund.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the representatives of Britain, from both sides of this House, on the Council of Europe voted for this Recommendation, and is it not a rather sad reflection on the sincerity and the good intentions of the Government that they have ignored that Recommendation, which was accepted unanimously at Strasbourg?

Mr. Harvey: No, Sir. I think, on reflection, that the decision was the right one.

Major Beamish: While recognising the very generous help which successive British Governments have given to European refugees, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think that the failure of the Government to adhere to I.C.E.M. is wholly illogical, in view


of the fact that the great majority of Europeans moved under that international scheme have gone to the Dominions?

Mr. Harvey: I appreciate the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has made, but we have to consider our resources very carefully, and I think that in the circumstances we could not afford to make a further contribution in that direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE

Staff and Expenditure

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent he has been able to implement the Government's policy of reducing expenditure in his Department; and whether he will give for January, 1951, and the latest convenient stated date the total number of staff employed in his Department and the total expenditure, respectively.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On 1st January, 1951, the total staff employed by the Foreign Office, excluding those locally-engaged abroad, numbered 11,549; and net Foreign Service and allied expenditure during the financial year 1950–51 was about £17,023,000. Corresponding figures for 1st April, 1956, and the financial year 1955–56 were 7,194 and £15,030,000.
The rate of reduction of staff and expenditure has decreased, because we are reaching the limit of economies and because salaries and other costs are rising. Nevertheless, economies are still being effected in accordance with the Government's policy; and the Estimates for the Foreign Service Vote for 1957–58, though slightly higher than the out-turn in the year 1955–56, show a reduction on the Estimates for 1956–57.

Mr. Lewis: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on that excellent news. Will he have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and with the other Service Departments, and give them advice as to how they too could achieve the admirable progress which he himself has made?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure that my right hon. Friends need advice from me, any more than I need congratulations from the hon. Member.

Staff (Salaries)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the number of his staff who, on Tuesday, 5th March, 1957, have not received an increase in their salaries, since the date upon which Members of Parliament last received an increase in their salaries.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: So far as the United Kingdom based staff are concerned, none, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: I welcome that reply, but may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that today Members of Parliament are only half as well paid, relatively, as were Members of Parliament in 1911? May we have an assurance that, with the exception of the Minister, no one in his Department is in that deplorable position?

Mr. Lloyd: My Answer covers that point.

Mr. H. Fraser: Will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House when the salary of the Foreign Secretary was last raised?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly the date of 1911 which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) mentioned is perfectly safe. I do not think that the Minister has had an increase in his pay packet for forty-five years.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

Suez Canal

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what approaches he has made either to the United Nations or the Egyptian Government, with a view to normalising relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government and resolving the Suez Canal dispute; and to what extent he has been successful in his endeavours.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As regards the resumption of normal relations, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 7th February, except that the Egyptian Government have as yet made no reply. As for action in the United Nations to resolve the Suez Canal dispute, there is nothing to add to the reply given to my noble friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on 20th February.

Mr. Lewis: May I take it from the Foreign Secretary's Answer that the British Government would be willing to normalise relations if we could get a settlement of all the outstanding difficulties now confronting us. Will he try to achieve a solution of these problems in an endeavour to get peace and understanding in the world, and particularly in the Middle East?

Mr. Lloyd: We certainly want a settlement of the problems in the area, and that settlement must include what the hon. Member calls a normalising of relations.

Captain Pilkington: Since Egypt originated the dispute, is not it about time that she took some action?

Mr. Lloyd: We cerainly hope that an initiative towards the settlement of the dispute will be taken by Egypt.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Foreign Secretary say when the United Nations will resume discussions with a view to the permanent settlement of the Suez Canal trouble, and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to that end?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that. It is not quite certain at the moment what the next steps to be taken will be. I think it is appropriate that there will be a resumed debate on the Middle East, either tomorrow or on the following day, after which it may be that the Secretary-General will make certain moves. I cannot add publicly to the information already given.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet say when the Suez Canal is to be reopened.

Mr. Fell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the clearance of the Suez Canal.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The latest information I have received from the United Nations is that apart from the vessels "Edgar Bonnet" and "Aboukir", on which the United Nations salvage team has not yet started work, the Canal has been cleared of all other wrecks which could impede the passage of normal traffic. This means that as soon as these two wrecks are removed, ships of at least 30 ft. draught could pass through the

Canal. I cannot give a precise date when the Canal will be open again. When it is opened the lighting, telecommunications and workshop facilities will have been restored.

Captain Pilkington: Why has it taken two months longer for the United Nations to get the Canal open than it would have taken us? Is it because the United Nations cannot do the work any more quickly or because Colonel Nasser has ordered it not to do the work any more quickly?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly would not like it to be thought that there is any reflection upon the technical skill of the United Nations team. I think it has done its very best, but certain limitations and delays have been imposed upon it.

Mr. Fell: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a ridiculous position that the Egyptian Government are deliberately holding up the clearance of the Canal? Will he please ask Mr. Dulles to explain why America seems quite prepared to adopt direct economic action against Israel but that when the question is one of stopping Egypt from dragging its feet over the clearance of the Canal, Mr. Dulles adopts the unctuous rôle of Pontius Pilate and palms the whole thing off on the United Nations.

Mr. Lloyd: It is not appropriate to comment in those terms upon the representative of a friendly State. I must say that. I would ask my hon. Friend, and all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen at this moment to exercise some restraint in this matter. It looks as if there is a certain easement in the situation. We very much want some agreement which will be in the interests of all the parties.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the pressure that has been brought to bear upon the State of Israel to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations and in view of its agreement to do so, what is going to be done about the attitude of the Egyptian Government? Is no pressure to be brought to bear upon that Government to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations? Are we to have one United Nations law for the State of Israel and quite another for Egypt?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly do not accept that position. It would be wrong for the


United Nations or for any country to accept the position that there should be different standards. We have sought in this matter to get an international set-up for the Gaza Strip, and to get the right of innocent passage through the Straits of Tiran recognised, and also that there should be no discrimination against ships going through the Suez Canal. We shall do everything possible to see that those objectives are attained.

Captain Waterhouse: is it not a fact that for three, four or five years we have constantly been asked to restrain ourselves in respect of adverse comments upon Egypt? Is it not high time that this House, the United States and the United Nations made it clear to the world that the Egyptian attitude in the Middle East is utterly disastrous to progress and to peace?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a time for adverse comment, and I have not abstained from adverse comment upon one Government or another from time to time. At this particular time I do not think that it is appropriate for us to go too far into this matter.

Mr. Bevan: Would it not be the wisest and most dignified posture for this House to adopt to assume that the Egyptian Government will now accept the authority of the United Nations and allow clearance of the Suez Canal without further hindrance, and not to make any assumption that Egypt will hold out any more against what she should do?

Mr. Lloyd: I believe that the Egyptian Government have already stated—I do not see why they should not keep their word on this matter—that there will be no discrimination against British or French shipping. That is the position at the moment. So far as Israeli shipping is concerned, the Egyptian Government have said that they would accept the six principles unanimously passed by the Security Council in October. That means that the Canal should be kept open to the shipping of the whole world. That is the present position, and that is how we should leave it.

British Nationals and Property

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are taking place with reference

to the property of British nationals impounded by the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There are no negotiations at the moment on this matter with the Egyptian Government. On 27th January, at Her Majesty's Government's request, the Swiss Legation in Cairo delivered a Note to the Egyptian Government calling on them to terminate the measures they had taken against British nationals and property during the period of armed conflict. The Egyptian Government have not yet replied.

Mr. Dugdale: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it would be a good thing if such negotiations were opened at an early date?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly I think it is right that the negotiations should be opened at the appropriate time.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (BRITISH AWARDS FOR GALLANTRY)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British decorations were awarded to clerics of the Greek orthodox church for deeds of gallantry in co-operation with British military liaison officers during the Second World War; and if he will list the decorations awarded; and how many of these have been returned in the last two years.

Mr. Ian Harvey: As the then Under-Secretary informed the hon. Member on 22nd September, 1948, it is not in accordance with public policy to reveal details of awards made to foreign nationals in war time. A very considerable number of Greek subjects received decorations for gallantry during the war. In reply to the second part of the Question, only one award of this kind is known to have been returned during the past two years by a cleric of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Gentleman cannot make that information public, can he not draw it quietly and privately to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and ask him to draw the appropriate conclusions?

Mr. Paget: Is not the position here that this Church is a political and military organisation and very likely to earn


decorations in war? It was on our side then. The trouble is that it is on the other side now.

Mr. Harvey: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. To reply to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), I see no point in drawing the attention of my right hon. Friend to this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (ARMS CONTROL AGENCY)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Arms Control Agency established under the nine-Power Agreement of October, 1954, to which Her Majesty's Government is a party, is now functioning; how many test checks and visits of inspection is has conducted; and in which countries.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Western European Union Arms Control Agency completed its first control year on 31st December, 1956. This was an experimental period during which much useful practical experience was gained. Nineteen depots and seven factories of member countries in Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy were visited by Agency officials during the year.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that many people in this and other countries regard this Agency as a very remarkable experiment with great possibilities, but that there is a great deal of doubt as to its efficiency up to date in Europe? Can he clear the air about this matter, because we consider it to be most important that confidence in this Agency should be restored?

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I entirely agree with him. I think far too little public attention and importance has been paid to this most valuable experiment. The Government certainly will welcome anything that hon. Members can do to arouse interest in its activities.

Sir J. Hutchison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Arms Control Agency has run into certain legal difficulties in connection with the inspection of private plants in some countries,

and that the removal of those legal difficulties, the need for which is urgent, will require legislation? Will he do what he can to press on with such legislation in order completely to free the hands of the Agency?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said. In fact, the Agency ran into legal difficulties almost from the very beginning. Some of these matters have been resolved, but I will again look into what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Agency to conduct any inspections in this country?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. The Agency inspects only depots or factories on the mainland of Europe, but included in the installations which it has inspected is one British one.

AIRCRAFT CRASH, ABINGDON

Mr. de Freitas: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement about the crash of the Beverley aircraft near Abingdon on 5th March.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Shortly after 11 o'clock yesterday morning a Beverley from the Royal Air Force Station, Abingdon, crashed near Drayton, about two miles from the airfield. The aircraft, which was bound for Malta and Cyprus, had taken off a few minutes before, but had reported engine trouble, and was returning to the airfield. The dead include three members of the crew, 12 officers and airmen flying as passengers and two civilians in the house which was demolished. The two remaining members of the crew, one other passenger in the aircraft, and two civilians were injured.
A Board of Inquiry has been convened and assembled this mornnig.
I know that the House will join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with the bereaved and the injured.

Mr. de Freitas: May I say, first, that my right hon. and hon. Friends join with the Secretary of State in his expressions of sympathy? May I ask him two questions? First, in view of the public disquiet about the secrecy of Royal Air


Force inquiries when civilians are involved, as they are here, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the relatives of the dead civilians to be legally represented at the inquiry if they so desire?
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say what restrictions have been placed on the operation of Beverleys, with whatever kind of engine they may have, pending the result of the inquiry?

Mr. Ward: Although, as I say, the Board of Inquiry has already started, and is being held in private, which is customary in these cases, I will certainly consider whether we can open it to the relatives of the deceased.
There is, I think, no evidence to suggest that the aircraft ought to be grounded or that any restrictions ought to be put on it, because the Beverley has already done thousands of hours' flying on Transport Command routes without any major accident of any kind. I think that enough is known already about the accident not to justify the grounding of the aircraft.

Air Commodore Harvey: As the accident, unfortunately, involves civilians, both killed and wounded, could not the inquiry be of a public nature? Also, will my right hon. Friend take notice of the extreme bravery and courage shown by the civilian and Service rescuers on the spot?

Mr. Ward: There are a number of factors, as I think my hon. and gallant Friend knows, which lead us to hold these inquiries in private. I would mention here only the need for speed. A formal public inquiry takes several weeks to convene. Having said that, I certainly do not underestimate the extent of public concern about an accident of this kind, and I shall hope to give the House a very full statement about the accident as soon as the Board has reported and we have had an opportunity to consider its findings.
I should like to pay a very high tribute indeed to the courage shown by all concerned after the accident.

Mrs. White: While no restriction is being placed on the aircraft, is any restriction being placed on the use of the airfield concerned in view of the representations which have been made on frequent occasions, particularly by a noble Lord in another place, about the undesirability of using the airfield because it is in close proximity to so many houses?

Mr. Ward: There is not the slightest evidence to show that the use of the airfield had any bearing at all on the accident. The aircraft had already been airborne for 18 minutes before the crash occurred. I would draw the attention of the hon. Lady to what the Mayor of Abingdon is reported to have said yesterday:
There has never at any time been any complaint of danger to people in the district, and I believe this is the first occasion on which there has been any damage or injury outside the airfield itself. Its safety record since it was established in 1930 has been very good.

Mr. Dudley Williams: As there is a rumour going around that the aeroplane crashed because one of its engines began to fail, will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to say whether or not the Beverley can maintain its height fully loaded on three engines?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. I do not want to say anything very much before the Court of Inquiry has made its findings, but all the trials that we have carried out so far show that in temperate conditions the Beverley ought to be able to climb at the rate of 300 feet a minute on three engines with its all-up maximum weight of 135,000 lb.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as he can, make a statement in the House covering the many points which have been raised from all sides of the House?

Mr. Ward: Yes Sir; as soon as I can.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Atomic Energy (Scientists and Technologists)

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 22nd March, I shall call attention, in view of the programme of increased investment in atomic energy, to the need still further to increase the number of scientists and technologists, and move a Resolution.

Old-age Pensions

Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 22nd March, I shall call attention to the need to raise old-age pensions immediately, and move a Resolution.

Roads (Expanded Programme)

Mr. A. S. Moody: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 22nd March, I shall call attention to the need for an expanded road programme, and move, That this House, whilst welcoming the expansion that has recently taken place in the road programme, believes that further and rapid extension is necessary if Great Britain is to cope with the demands for a modern, efficient, and less dangerous road transport system.

BILL PRESENTED

AGRICULTURE

Bill to make further provision for guaranteed prices and assured markets for producers of agricultural produce in the United Kingdom; to authorise the payment of grants in respect of long-term improvements of agricultural land within the United Kingdom and in respect of the costs of certain transactions concerning such land; to make fresh provision for the development of the pig industry in Great Britain (including the production, processing, manufacture and distribution of pig products); to authorise payments into the Exchequer of Northern Ireland on account of expenses incurred for the benefit of producers of agricultural produce in Northern Ireland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Amory; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Maclay, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord John Hope, and Mr. Godber; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 26th February].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

3.38 p.m.

The Chairman: The proposed new Clause, "Members of the House of Lords"—
A Member of the House of Lords shall be free to stand for election to the House of Commons. If elected he shall cease to be summoned to attend the House of Lords so long as he is a Member of the House of Commons.
—in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), is outside the scope of the Bill, and is, therefore, out of order.

Mr. John Parker: Surely, Sir Charles, if a Member of the House of Lords were allowed to sit in the House of Commons, that would be the removal of his disqualification?

The Chairman: I do not consider the proposed Clause to be in order.

Mr. Parker: Might I draw to your attention, Sir Charles, the fact that if the Clause were carried it would remove a disqualification which at present prohibits a Member of the House of Lords from sitting in this House.

The Chairman: The proposed Clause is outside the scope of the Bill and cannot be moved.

Mr. George Wigg: As a Member of another place is not debarred by legislative action from sitting in this House, it must surely be in order, Sir Charles, on a Bill concerned with disqualification for hon. Members, to move a Clause to make it absolutely clear that, irrespective of any action that may be taken by another place, this House has control over its own membership. Therefore, I submit for your further consideration that the Clause ought to be considered by the Committee.

The Chairman: No. It cannot be. In my view, it is outside the scope of the Bill.

New Clause.—(BARRISTERS FOR CROWN, &c.)

A member of the House of Commons shall cease to be a member if being a barrister he receives in any year as a barrister acting for or behalf of the Crown or any department or office of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom remuneration in excess of one hundred pounds.—[Mr. Wigg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I touched on the scope of this Clause during the debate on the Second Reading of the original Bill, and I should like to make it quite clear that I do not place myself, I hope, in the illogical position that, having sought on a previous occasion, to allow members of the clergy to sit here, I should, on this occasion, seek to disqualify members of the legal profession from being Members of this House.
As I said when I spoke at that time, I do not mind very much whether every member of the legal profession in this House receives preferment of an astronomical amount. In fact, I wish that every lawyer were earning £20,000 a year; it might encourage some of them to go to another place. I want to place no bar on any man, a member of any profesison, sitting in this House. Indeed, had I been an absolutely free agent I should have moved my new Clause in rather different terms.
Its history is this. I tabled the Clause before the Select Committee was set up. It was considered by the Select Committee, and it then became clear that I had a greater volume of support in the House than I had thought. I therefore did not think it right to alter its wording, as a number of hon. Gentlemen, I understand on both sides, have given the matter very careful consideration.
When I started to look into the matter I used the Order Paper, as I always do, as the proper means of obtaining information. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General a number of Questions. I thought that he went out of his way to make it perfectly clear that, while it might be proper to question other Departments of State about the activities or emoluments of hon. Members, he resented—I thought that he savagely resented—the fact that I

should seek to inquire—I believe that he thought that I was prying—into the secrets of the legal profession.
All that I then sought to do was to ascertain the names of hon. Gentlemen who had received Government briefs, and when it appeared that I could not have the names, I subsequently sought to find out the numbers and the amounts. So that my Questions should not show a party view, I asked that the information should go back to 1945. In other words, my approach to the problem is, and was then, that while I have no objection whatever to the Attorney-General or any other Minister giving what briefs they wish, of what amount they like, I think that the House and the public ought to know how much these gentlemen are getting, for the patronage that is exercised by the Government—and, indeed, at one time by the Crown—assumes a different aspect at different times.
It is, of course, asking of human nature far too much that a man should be required, perhaps, in defence of his opinions to forgo his livelihood. That issue might well arise, and I am quite confident that it has arisen in the past. I am not saying that about hon. Gentlemen on this side or on that, nor am I saying that it applies to any hon. Gentlemen in this present Parliament, but I do not believe that at no time in, say, the present century no member of the legal profession has tempered what he was to say or perhaps even modified his votes because he was in hope of patronage from one State Department or another.
3.45 p.m.
I do not think that members of the legal profession are any worse, and I also do not think they are any better, than any other members of the community. Therefore, if we seek to preserve the dignity of the House, and to lay down rules, and very strict rules, about ordinary hon. Members and ordinary Departments of State, I ask that the same rules and the same standard shall apply to the legal profession.
This, of course, is a matter of history. There was a time, and I think that there are still survivors of it, when the House of Commons was organised, and the times of its meetings arranged to meet the convenience of hon. Members who were lawyers. [An HON. MEMBER: "It still is."] Perhaps it still is, and perhaps there are some who would not like to change


that. However, I do not think that, in asking the Committee to treat this as a very serious problem indeed, and one which should be brought into the light of day, I am asking too much.
In talking to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House I have met with one argument. It is put to me that if this new Clause were accepted, a number of ex-Attorneys-General and ex-Solicitors-General would thereby be debarred from giving their legal services to the Crown. It is said that as they are men of great eminence their earnings are high, and that to put a bar of £100 on what they earn would be not only an injustice to them, but would be depriving the State of their great and eminent legal services in cases which the Government might wish those services to be at the country's disposal.
Surely that is putting their sense of public spirit at a very low level indeed. Day by day, dozens of hon. Gentlemen on both sides sit on Select Committees, do the humdrum business outside this Chamber and do not get a penny for their services. If, therefore—I shall not mention names, but a constituency did come to my lips—a right hon. and learned Gentleman who is an ex-Attorney-General were to learn that his services were urgently needed by the State, I am quite sure that the present Attorney-General would only have to ask him and his services would be given free in exactly the same way as the services of any hon. Member are at the disposal of the House and of the Government. Therefore, although this argument is put forward seriously, it seems to me that it is two-edged. I do not think that, in accepting this new Clause, the Government would be depriving themselves of the services of such lawyers.
I do not want to say any more. I wearied the House on a previous occasion by arguing my case on the basis of the refusal of the Attorney-General to reply during the original Second Reading debate, and I do not think that I need repeat those arguments today. I conclude with the words with which I started. I have a great respect for the legal profession—a great respect. They are men of tidy minds, who are always considering whether every argument is "buttoned up." But what the House of Commons needs is not only tidy minds, not only

arguments which are all "buttoned up," but common sense. The House needs men of conviction. It needs men who believe in something, not men who all the time are speaking from a brief.
Moreover, the abler the lawyer the less likely he is to make a good Member of the House of Commons, because the very qualities that make him a good and successful lawyer keep him from regular attendance on this House. The first thing that an hon. Gentleman has to learn on coming here is that if he wants to love and serve the place he has to spend lots of time here, because the opportunities come and the opportunities go. As I say, the successful lawyer is busy with his briefs, busy in court, busy in chambers. He has to miss the humdrum but essential business of sitting on Select and other Committees. He cannot be here for Questions.
Therefore, while the House of Commons needs the services of able lawyers—the very nature of our business on occasions necessitates the advice of legal gentlemen—it would be a very bad day for Parliament and for the country if the legal influences were to become over-strong. Whether the Committee accepts that argument or not, at least we ought to know who is getting what. That seems to me to be the very least of our arguments, and, to elicit the information on who gets what, I am moving this Clause, which seeks to make quite sure that no barrister who earns more than £100 shall be a Member of the House of Commons.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I must confess that I was expecting this debate to be carried on for a little while longer before it fell to me to reply to it. Of course, I am only too glad to reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) straight away, because we have got a good deal of business to do and I should like to deploy my answer to this proposed new Clause.
First, I will deal with the Questions which the hon. Gentleman asked—and I do not think I need go into it in any detail—about my personal income, among other things. I do not think that there is any need for me to disclose those details at this Box. What the hon. Gentleman was seeking to do was to find out more about how the system of nomination works and how it has been operated.


I appreciate that this may be a somewhat difficult problem for those who are not engaged in the law.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I had some influence with regard to the appointment of Recorders and the payment of fees on Crown briefs. Of course, I have not. An Attorney-General has no say or control whatsoever over the fees that are paid to counsel whom he nominates. When an Attorney-General nominates, counsel are briefed by the Treasury Solicitor or the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Solicitor for whatever Government Department may be concerned, and then the fee paid is a matter for arrangement between the Government Department and the set of chambers.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that it is not possible for me—because we have no records—to say what fees are, in fact, received by barristers who are also Member of the House of Commons. We have not got the details in our office. We do not keep them; we never know them, because we are not informed of them.
I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that at present we are considering two main heads of disqualification—one relates to holders of offices of profit under the Crown, and the other relates to contracts or arrangements
for the furnishing or providing of money to be remitted abroad or wares and merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public.
Those are the two main heads of disqualification at present.
Those barristers who are appointed standing counsel for the Crown have been for many years prohibited by the terms of their appointment from holding that appointment on becoming Members of Parliament. That has been an effective and satisfactory method, which is now being embodied in the provision in this Bill which disqualifies standing counsel. But under this Clause we are not at all concerned with any barrister who holds anything in the nature of an office. We are concerned only with those barristers who from time to time earn fees for conducting cases for and advising the Crown.
Of course, a barrister is not in contractual relationship with the Crown. It may be said to be a relationship which is in some respects analogous to a contract.

This Clause seems to run contrary to the main spirit of this Bill in that it seeks to bring back a disqualification based on what is really a quasi-contractual relationship. When the hon. Gentleman said that we ought to apply the same rules and the same standards to the legal profession—a proposition generally with which no one would disagree—I would say to him that this proposed new Clause departs from the standards and the rules which this Bill lays down with regard to all other professions and all other people, because it is seeking to bring back as a basis of disqualification the amount of fees that are earned. That is quite contrary to the spirit of this Bill. The matter may be one of disclosing one's personal interest, whether it be a contract or a fee or in any other way. It is not a matter of disqualification.
I would point out, also, that barristers are not the only members of the professional classes who earn fees from the Crown. Why should they be singled out for disqualification? There are also solicitors, architects, doctors, dentists and surveyors. There is a long list. They all draw fees from the Crown. There is no reason for saying that barristers should be singled out for disqualification in the way that this proposed new Clause suggests.
There is no reason for saying that the barrister who earns 96 guineas in a year is disqualified and that one who earns 95 guineas is not. No ground can be suggested for saying that the earning of 96 guineas is incompatible with membership. It cannot be argued that the fees paid in the past to barristers who are Members of this House have been given either to reward the faithful on this side of the House or as bribes to the "infidels" on the other side of the House. There is no substance in that suggestion. Past history shows that there is no ground for imputing anything of that kind. That suggestion, therefore, falls to the ground. One cannot justify this new Clause on the ground that it is incompatible with membership of this House for a Member of this House who is a barrister to earn 96 guineas in the course of a year.
It may be thought that I and my predecessors have had a great deal of patronage in this matter. I should like to say a little about that, because it may not be generally realised within what a


small compass the matter which we are discussing on this new Clause lies. I gave a good deal of information to the Select Committee. It will be found in the Select Committee's Report, and I need not reiterate it now, but I should like to bring the matter up to date. Since I have been Attorney-General I have been responsible for a total of 2,598 nominations. It sounds a large number.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Are those briefs?

The Attorney-General: They are nominations for conducting cases. That includes all nominations which are made from my office of counsel on circuits and everywhere else. Of those nominations, no more than 45 have gone to Members of this House. Those 45 have been distributed among 15 Members of Parliament.
As I said before the Select Committee, and also, I believe, in our last debate on this subject, I think it would be invidious of me to give the names and the numbers. If pressed, I would, naturally, like to consider the request, but I am reluctant to say who has been nominated and how often. Even if I were to give that information, I could not indicate what fees they had, in fact, earned because I have not the least knowledge.
4.0 p.m.
Of those 15 Members of Parliament, eight were Conservative, six Labour and one Liberal. I would assure the Committee that I have acted throughout on the same principle as I am sure my predecessors have followed, namely, to try to secure the right man for the case—that is the first main object—and to ensure as fair a distribution of the work as possible among those who are available and fit to take it. One cannot, of course, have hard and fast rules about that. The vast mass of nominations is, in fact, for cases of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I took a sample check of about 500, and I found that no less than 380 out of the 500 in one period were Director of Public Prosecutions cases, many of them on circuit.
It is sometimes said, and I think it was suggested in the last debate, that it might perhaps be a good thing if the selection were done by the Government Departments direct. I, personally, do not

think that it would be. I think that we should probably get certain people becoming, as it were, favourites of particular Departments, and we should not get that fair distribution which I seek to ensure and we should not get a number of people competent to do the various types of work. In fact, of course, if such a transfer were made, it would make very little practical difference because, under the regulations under which the Director of Public Prosecutions acts, I am responsible for nominations in that class of case.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that work was given to 15 Members of Parliament, eight Conservative, six Labour and one Liberal. Did they get one brief each, or did they get a number of briefs? Could he tell us how many there were?

The Attorney-General: I said 45 briefs among the 15 Members of Parliament.

Mr. Bowles: Altogether, making three each?

The Attorney-General: I do not say that it is equally divided. It depends on the type of case, where it is, which circuit, and so forth. But I do my best to see that there is a fair distribution.
I should say that in addition to the 2,589 cases in which nominations have been made, there have been 77 nominations in Revenue cases, and, of those 77, 15 have been given to five Members of Parliament, three of whom are Conservatives, I think, and two from the party opposite. I do not know whether the Committee would require me to go into more detail about the allocation, but I can assure the Committee that I seek to give the fairest possible distribution.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in his humorous speech in moving this Clause, suggested that it would not matter very much if the Clause were brought in, because any ex-Law Officer would be prepared to do work in excess of £100 a year free for the Crown. I was a little astonished at that proposition coming from him, because I thought that he was a great believer in the rate for the job.

Mr. Henry Usborne: I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would


explain to me a remark which he made a little earlier, which I find a little puzzling. He took the point that it might be advisable for the various different Ministries to brief their own counsel, and then he went on to say that that might lead to favouritism. He concluded, evidently, that when his office did it there was not any favouritism. I should like him to explain that. He is perhaps quite right about it; but why is his office so completely impartial, whereas other offices are evidently not so impartial?

Mr. G. Lindgren: rose—

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I might answer the question put by the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) first.
I was dealing with a suggestion which had been put forward for a possible change. It is not a suggestion made in this Clause. I was saying that I was rather against it, for this reason, that if a particular Government Department does the work on its own it will tend to confine itself possibly to one, two, three or four people, depending on the volume of the work, and we should not get that general distribution among Members of the Bar which I myself regard as useful and desirable.
If one has two or three what one might call favourites, and they take other work or fade out, there is no one trained to take their place. One particular instance is criminal work. I try to see that there is a fair distribution between the different people, smaller, simpler cases going to the young men who have just been called, more difficult cases to those more experienced, and cases which are really difficult going to those with great experience. I doubt that one would get that same classification and distribution in any other way.

Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the rate for the job. Does he not realise that there are many Members of the House of Commons who give their whole time to the House who do not get the rate for the job? Why is it more necessary for a lawyer to get the rate for a job away from the House than it is for a Member of Parliament, attending a Standing Committee two or three times a week, to have the rate for the job?

The Attorney-General: I am not going into the question of the rate for the job for Members of Parliament.

Mr. Lindgren: It was raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Attorney-General: With respect, I did not raise it. It is the hon. Member for Dudley who raised it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did, by what he said. Let me explain it for a moment or two.
The hon. Member suggested that only barristers or, I think he said, ex-Law Officers, should be expected to, and would, if asked, do their professional work, that is to say, handle briefs in the courts, for nothing once they had earned £100. I was suggesting that that struck me as rather a novel suggestion —[An HON. MEMBER: "A joke."]—it may have been a joke—and I said that it was really contrary to the view that one should get the rate for the job. But that is quite a different subject from any question of sitting in Standing Committees and things of that kind.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He answered a point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne), who asked what special quality the holder of the office of Attorney-General had which holders of office in other Government Departments do not have. I put this same point to him on 9th November, 1955, when I said:
What special qualifications has the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any holder of his office, which requires that we should trust him, when we do not trust any of his right hon. or hon. Friends?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 1902–3.]
Would he be kind enough to answer?

The Attorney-General: I thought that I had answered, but I will explain it a little more if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
Government Departments, or their representatives, are not likely to be in anything like as close touch with the Bar as a whole as the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. They are not likely to know all the young men—all the good young men and all the others. They may pick on one and think that he is very good, but this may mean that they ignore the claims of the others. In my view, the Law Officers, who do keep themselves in


touch with the profession, have a wider knowledge of those who are competent to deal with particular types of case. I really cannot say more upon it. I think that that is so, in fact.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a wholly satisfactory answer from his point of view, but does he not realise that he is now admitting that he has applied a standard to those to whom he gives briefs which would not be permitted for one moment in any other Department? He says that he looks at the young men—quite right—and he wants to help young men in his profession. What would he say if the Minister of Health nominated surgeons or dentists, not for their professional ability, but because he wanted to give one of the lads a start?

The Attorney-General: Either I have not made myself clear or the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I would repeat what I said and try to explain it to the hon. Gentleman. He must realise that cases must vary tremendously in magnitude, complexity and difficulty.

Mr. Lindgren: And in what a man gets for them.

The Attorney-General: And in what a man gets for them.
I said, and I say again, that the governing principle in the nomination of counsel is the selection of the right man for the job. One does not consider whether a man is a Member of Parliament or not; that has nothing to do with it. One considers whether he is the right man. At one end of the scale, when one gets a simple case one does not require the most experienced man to conduct it. One can get the right man although he is less experienced. That is what I mean by saying that there is a fair distribution of work, and sometimes more briefing of younger barristers than might otherwise occur. In that way one gets, I believe, a fair allocation of the work and it is to the advantage of the Crown's service generally.
It was the recommendation of the House of Commons that the hon. Member's Amendments should be considered by the Select Committee. They were considered—I have no doubt carefully. I gave evidence on them, as the hon. Member knows, and the Select Committee

rejected them by eleven votes to one. Having considered the matter once again I must advise the Committee that in our view there is no need for the Clause, that there is no justification for it, and that there really is no ground whatever for singling out members of the Bar who are Members of this House for different treatment, in relation to what is a quasi-contractual relationship, than any other Member of the House of Commons who belongs to any other profession.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I realise that one is exposing oneself rather awkwardly on an occasion of this kind. I must at once confess to a certain interest and equally confess to disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He introduced the Clause with great fairness and, indeed, kindness. I expected very much greater trouble from him than, in fact, was forthcoming. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter of tremendous importance. I think that in this case he has started from a wrong analysis of the premises and has, therefore, come to a wrong conclusion. I want to put before the Committee, as briefly as I can, how the matter strikes me.
First, the principle upon which this proposal is based is not simply to eliminate the Executive patronage of Members of Parliament. If that were a fundamental principle of general application, my hon. Friend would have proved his case, except with regard to the £100 provision which seems to me to be quite ridiculous. If my hon. Friend is going for the case, he should have gone for it straight out without any exception of £100 at all.
Consider, for example, a young man who is starting at the Bar. He may get briefs up to £25, £50 or £100, perhaps more than he would make in a whole year. If he gets that much patronage to start him off, it is much more valuable to him than considerably bigger sums later. I am not, however, taking a frivolous technicality of that kind against my hon. Friend. What he is concerned with is the principle, whether the £100 is there or not. It is on that principle that I shall deal with his new Clause.
The true principle is not, of course, to eliminate Executive patronage of Members of Parliament. The principle always was to eliminate Crown patronage where


there was danger arising from it of influencing votes in the House of Commons. The Attorney-General referred to the enormous field of patronage that is now open to the Executive. We have all kinds of contracts and all kinds of other professions than the Bar. In this case, the Bar is being chosen as the one kind of profession which has to be penalised by the amendment that the new Clause would make to the Bill. There is no corresponding amendment dealing with any other profession, or, indeed, with any other contracts.
What my hon. Friend has to establish —and he may have a good deal of sympathy in the Committee in trying to establish it—is that there is a vicious peculiarity about the Bar which makes its members extremely susceptible, in an improper way, to patronage by the Executive. There is no evidence of that.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. and learned Friend has introduced the word "vicious". I did not do so, but he knows the Bar much better than I do. I would never call its members vicious. Apparently, my hon. and learned Friend could not have listened to the first part of my argument. I am not concerned about the £100. What the public want to know, and what I want to know, is: who gets what?

4.15 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: My hon. Friend wishes me to speak to something other than the new Clause?

Mr. Wigg: Yes.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We cannot have that. I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's new Clause as a matter of principle without the £100. I am treating it on the footing that he is sufficiently wise not to include any reference to the £100 at all.
I was not suggesting that my hon. Friend was saying that I and my hon. and learned Friends in the House of Commons were vicious, nor, indeed, was I suggesting it. What I was suggesting was that what has to be established by any Amendment which is made to the Bill is that the Bar is somehow, by some peculiarity, distinguished by some viciousness, from other professions and distinguished from businessmen with whom contracts can be made.
To prove his case, my hon. Friend has to establish a peculiar viciousness on their part which distinguishes them from other people, which, of course, he himself completely disclaims. I accept what my hon. Friend says, that members of the Bar are no better and no worse than the general run of the community, but once he makes that admission—I hope he recognises this—the ease for his treating the Bar in this peculiar manner completely collapses.

Mr. Wigg: That is a non sequitur.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I have not finished. If my hon. Friend had followed my reasoning, he would see that it is a complete sequitur. First, there is no evidence of that, and secondly, it is ridiculous to suggest it, not only because —although I do not expect my hon. Friend to accept this—of the traditions, and so on, of the Bar itself, but also because of the strength of the party machine.
Now, I come to the constructive part of my observations. I accept what my hon. Friend said, that the nature of the danger from patronage changes from age to age, according to the different relationships; of course, that is so. The danger in the present set-up is not really from the Crown influencing Members of Parliament in their votes in the House of Commons. The danger nowadays is from the too great power of the Executive, not only in the House of Commons but throughout the country. Therefore, the vice at which my hon. Friend ought to be hitting is not by making members of the Bar in the House of Commons less susceptible to, if I may use the term, bribery in their votes—the word was used in an intervention and I accept it; it is not a nice word, but it describes what is in my mind; perhaps "pressure" might be better—the danger is not in the bribery system in the House of Commons, but is the growing strength of the Executive generally by the spoils system, whether in the House of Commons or outside.
I would welcome the Attorney-General ceasing to have the patronage over briefs. I think that my hon. Friend's Clause should be framed in that way instead of in its present form. It is not an answer for the Attorney-General to say that it is perfectly all right for him to allocate briefs, just as it is for other Departments


to allocate them. That does not quite meet the argument.
In the case of the Attorney-General allocating briefs, I accept at once that it has been properly done at all times; I am not suggesting otherwise. But we have in this case a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Executive, himself directly, personally doing so. That seems to me an invidious position. I should have thought that any Attorney-General would have been glad to be rid of that. The more that the patronage is removed from the member of the Executive, the better it is.
I would have welcomed an amendment of the Bill on those lines. Indeed, the Attorney-General did not indicate that he was completely set against it but said, quite fairly, that in his view the existing arrangement was desirable. I did not gather from him that he was so hard and fast in his view about that as to consider it should be debarred from consideration altogether.

Sir Lionel Heald: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee who would do this better and more impartially than the Attorney-General?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: If I did not make myself clear, I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, which will allow me to make myself clear.
I am not suggesting that anybody would do it more efficiently or more impartially. That is no part of my case. I hoped that I made that clear. The point I am making is that there is patronage in the hands of a member of the Executive and that it is direct patronage, and that it is undesirable, in my view, that that should be seen to exist, and I think that the further it is removed the better and that it is desirable that it should be removed from the direct control of the Executive.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would my hon. and learned Friend not agree, following the query of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), that the obvious person to suggest would he the Treasury Solicitor?

Sir L. Heald: A servant of the Executive?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will follow the argument. We are at cross-purposes at the moment. I am not saying, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is not saying, that it is better in the sense that thus it would be more impartially or more efficiently done. We are not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that it is, on principle, preferable that patronage should be removed as far as possible from the Executive and the direct head of the Executive.

Sir L. Heald: The difference is that the Treasury Solicitor is a servant of the Government and that the Attorney-General is not a servant of the Government. I should think, therefore, that the Attorney-General is more likely to be free of influence than the Treasury Solicitor.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I know the anomalous position, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the anomalous position, which the Attorney-General occupies. However, I shall not pursue that further. I hope that I have made the position perfectly clear to hon. Members.
From the point of view of the Bar, the position in the House of Commons is really becoming somewhat serious. Because it is very pertinent to the matter we are now considering, I would put before the Committee what the position is. Before the war, members of the Bar, of all parties, and the best members of the Bar, almost automatically became Members of the House. That is no longer the position, and it is a serious matter. Until the recent by-election at Lewisham, North not a single member of the Bar has become a Member of the House on our side. Members of the House who are also members of the Bar have left the House to go back to the Bar.
I understand from businessmen that the House of Commons is not getting from among businessmen people it would be desirable to have in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. There have been a certain number of people coming from the Bar into the House upon the other side, but, nevertheless, it is true to say that we are not getting into the House, on either side, the representative members of the Bar we used to get before the war.


I think that that is a thoroughly bad thing. It is a bad thing for the House and it is a bad thing for the Bar, and, indeed, for the Bench.
What we need is an inquiry into the whole position of Members of the House of Commons. There are complaints, with which I have complete sympathy, among Members of the House who give their full time to the work of the House. The work of the House could not be done unless they gave their whole time to it. They receive for it a salary which is utterly inadequate. The same can be said about junior Ministers of the Crown. We find difficulty in filling some of the junior offices because junior Ministers are not being paid enough for the purpose. They are not being paid salaries comparable to those which persons of that quality would be paid for work outside.
There is a tendency, and it is inherent in this new Clause, although the new Clause increases the tendency to an insignificant degree only, yet still to some degree, to cut down still further the handicaps which are already excluding people from membership of the House of Commons. It requires not only full-time Members, but, I personally think, part-time Members, too, of experience of different occupations, and it requires them upon terms which neither starve those who give their full time to the House nor kill those who give part of their time to it, contrary to what the position is at the moment. The way in which the Government have dealt with this problem is cowardly and despicable.
There is a school of thought which believes in some sort of spoils system, to which I, personally, am most strongly opposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has referred to the history of this matter, and it is no secret that in days gone by, long, long ago, judicial offices were considered fair rewards for political work. We know that during the Chancellorship of Lord Jowitt and Lord Simonds—I shall not go back further—that matter was dealt with in a way which commanded the complete respect of the whole of the profession. It is extremely important that it should be maintained.
We want the House of Commons made a place where persons can serve and be provided with independence in doing that service. The danger now is not pressure from the other side of the House of

Commons. The requirement is independence of pressure of the party machine itself. That is the big problem which entails the payment of Members of the House of Commons, the security of Members of the House, and the quality and general position of Members of the House, including their occupations inside and outside.
It is this enormous problem to which the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley leads. I should like to see an impartial and a very high-powered inquiry into the whole position of membership of the House of Commons, including, although merely as one aspect of the matter, albeit an important aspect, the proper payment of Members of the House of Commons, so as to ensure completely independent membership of this Assembly.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), I am opposed to the new Clause, and, like him, I have an obvious interest to declare in it. The guiding principle which the Select Committee on the House of Commons Disqualification Bill had in mind in approaching the whole subject of disqualification from membership of the House is set out in the first paragraph of its Report, in which it says that the first principle is
…that qualification for membership of the House of Commons should be on as wide a basis as possible.
That was the consideration which certainly influenced most hon. Members who served on that Select Committee in reaching the recommendation which it presented to the House. In pursuance of that, the Select Committee swept away the general disqualification of Members on account of holding offices of profit, and replaced it by a schedule in which particular offices of profit are listed. No other office disqualifies a person from membership of the House of Commons.
4.30 p.m.
The Select Committee, secondly, recommended an equally great change, namely, that all disqualifications on the ground of contracting with the Government should be abolished. It would be a strange innovation, indeed, if in the Bill we were to introduce a new disqualification, which


never existed before, on the acceptance of a Crown brief. It has never disqualified before.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: Being a lawyer has disqualified.

Mr. Bell: We all know my hon. Friend's historical ability, but I am not talking about being a lawyer. We are discussing the new Clause, which deals with the receipt of Crown briefs. Crown briefs were not contracts of service, nor did the acceptance of them constitute the holding of office of any kind. Therefore, they have never disqualified.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is suggesting that at a time when we have decided, or will shortly decide, that all commercial contracts will not disqualify, we shall decide that one particular kind of service, and not a regular service but an occasional one, should disqualify. Even if this Committee were suddenly to think that professional service should disqualify when commercial contracts do not, it would be rather strange just to pick on barristers.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has referred to solicitors and doctors. The figure in the proposed new Clause is £100. I do not know, but I should be very surprised if there were not right hon. and hon. Members of the House of Commons in receipt of something more like £2,000 in respect of medical services payable from public funds under the National Health Service.

Mr. E. G. Willis: But surely that is not directly under the patronage of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member will appreciate that the Health Service is quite different from the other nationalised organisations. It is directly under the Crown and the Minister has direct control, unlike the National Coal Board or British Railways. Therefore, the analogy is correct.
I am sure that hon. Members would not think it reasonable that a practitioner who was a Member of the House of Commons should be debarred from serving in the National Health Service, or that a solicitor or surveyor should be in this absurd danger that he might find that in some way he had acted for the

Crown and had received a fee exceeding £100, which he might easily do.

Mr. Lindgren: Doctors have come into the House of Commons and, because they could not carry on their practices and be Members, have given up their practices. I can think of three such cases.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member seems to have left the realm of principle and to be arguing particular cases. I should have thought it unreasonable to hon. Members that Members should be debarred by law from participating in the National Health Service because they have come into the House of Commons. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are participating in the Health Service at the present time, some possibly on a consultant basis.
It would be quite illogical to pick out the Bar and to leave out the others, but it is surely totally illogical to put in a profession at all when we have decided in principle and are about to decide in detail in Committee on Clause 9 that commercial contracts should go out.

The Attorney-General: We have passed Clause 9.

Mr. Bell: That strengthens my argument immensely, because the Committee apparently has already decided to order Clause 9 to stand part of the Bill and, therefore, it would be rather absurd to add the new Clause to the Bill. When this matter was discussed in the Select Committee we had a Division on it and only one right hon. Member voted in favour of the change. It was the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). All the other members of the Committee, from both sides of the House of Commons, voted against it.

Mr. Ede: What does that prove?

Mr. Wigg: In an effort to be fair, I left out of the argument what the Select Committee decided or did not decide to do, but if the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) persists in bringing against me the fact that the Select Committee took a certain decision, surely, in all fairness, he must tell us how many lawyers were members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Bell: I think that the hon. Member for Dudley would not have left out reference to what happened in the Select Committee if it had been in his favour.

Mr. Wigg: On the contrary.

Mr. Bell: I could not say off-hand how many members of the Select Committee were lawyers, but at least one right hon. Member opposite, who is not a lawyer, voted against the hon. Member for Dudley on this point.
The Select Committee sets out very clearly in paragraph 6 the argument against the proposal. It says:
As the law stands, and as the Bill committed to Your Committee was drafted, it would be possible for a member with large contracting interests to erect a huge block of Government offices without thereby incurring disqualification, while another member, perhaps supplying for the same offices furniture worth little more than a hundred pounds, would disqualify himself.
That is, under the law at present. To supply goods in excess of £100 disqualifies, and the hon. Member for Dudley, by means of the new Clause, is trying to put the Bar in exactly the same position as the tradesmen whom we are now, by means of the Bill, trying to leave out.
The Select Committee added:
It seemed clear to Your Committee that the law should not be left in its present state, and they were faced with deciding either for bare repeal or a new clause, or new clauses, covering all sorts of contractual relations between Government and government departments on the one hand and on the other commercial, trade and professional organisations in which a member might, directly or indirectly as director, shareholder or otherwise, happen to participate or, in the further alternative, to provide for suitable publicity to be given to any Government contracts or arrangements, including Crown briefs, which might otherwise become, or be thought to be, the means of secret patronage or of undue influence by the Government of the day on members of the House of Commons. Faced with the extreme difficulty of drafting satisfactory new clauses to cover all such possibilities, and having regard particularly to the evidence of the Clerk of the House that he had neither evidence nor knowledge of any corruption affecting members in connection with Government contracts for the past hundred years, Your Committee considered it unnecessary to go beyond the repeal of the existing law.
If that is not merely the recommendation of the Select Committee, but the effect of the Bill which the House passed on Second Reading and consideration of

which, except for proposed new Clauses, we have completed in Committee, then, apart from any other argument such as that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, which I thought very powerful on the desirability of allowing members of the Bar to be Members of the House, the new Clause is already inconsistent with what the House of Commons has decided to do.
The House has decided to throw membership of the House open to anyone who has not an office incompatible with such membership, either for physical reasons or because he would be manifestly susceptible to pressure from the Executive. If that is the course that the Committee has decided upon, it would be absurd to accept the proposed new Clause.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), I have no personal interest in this matter. As the Committee knows, I am not a barrister. I am a humble solicitor, a member of the junior branch of the legal profession, and therefore at no time am I in danger of being offered a Crown brief.
The Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for having raised this matter. We have had a most interesting speech from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East, who has made a suggestion for an inquiry, which I cordially endorse. It is true that this particular suggestion was fully ventilated in the Select Committee and I, having been a member of it, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, had the occasion and the duty to consider the matter carefully. Having done so, I was, as was pointed out, one of the majority of eleven who decided on the merits against the Clause, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) being in a minority of one.
However, I do not think the matter can be left there. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, although I had not been convinced in the discussions


which took place in the Select Committee, I was prepared to come here this afternoon with an open mind, and be convinced by what arguments he wanted to address to this Committee. My hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that I feel that, contrary to his usual performances, he did not do himself full justice on this occasion. I do not think he made the most of the case that could be made out. The Select Committee had to consider the whole of the grounds on which disqualification should rest.
As was pointed out in the memoranda—which are now printed in the Appendix—that the Committee received from the Attorney-General and from the Clerk of the House, the real test of disqualification is incompatibility. Incompatibility may arise in one of two ways. It may arise because the mere nature of the office is incompatible with membership of the House of Commons. The classic instance of that is provided by civil servants or judges, since obviously their functions disqualify them. Another ground of incompatibility, which the hon. Member merely touched upon, was that there might be a physical cause of incompatibility; for example, ambassadors and other people whose very occupation requires them to live abroad or to spend a great deal of time abroad, or away from London, would therefore find themselves in a position which was incompatible with their presence in the House.
One way in which the hon. Member for Dudley might present his case, if I may respectfully suggest it to him, is as follows. There is a real sense of grievance in the House of Commons that a large number of hon. Members, with no other source of income, have to man Standing Committees two or three times a week. At the same time there are not only members of the Bar, but members of other professions, including my own, who are able to supplement their Parliamentary salaries by earning money outside; and as long as Crown briefs continue, it will be part of the duty of barristers to attend court during the daytime, thereby rendering themselves unable to attend Standing Committees.
That is a real grievance, and I have every sympathy with it, but the remedy for that state of affairs is not to disqualify barristers who receive Crown briefs, but

for the Government to pay all Members of Parliament adequate Parliamentary salaries. That is what we on these benches have been pressing for a long time past, and if this debate has no other result, I hope it will give a sense of urgency to that demand which has been repeatedly pressed.
4.45 p.m.
Now I turn to another matter. I am not sure how far the hon. Member for Dudley did so, but it could be urged that the mere existence of this patronage in the hands of the Attorney-General is in itself incompatible with membership of the House because it could be said that it exposes Members of Parliament to pressure, to influence; that it provides them with financial rewards which must tend to affect their attitude in this House. I do not think that argument was pressed; nor do I think the Attorney-General answered it. He gave some figures and the information was useful because the public are entitled to know the extent of this patronage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that since his appointment to the office he had been responsible for 2,598 nominations, of which forty-five had gone to fifteen different Members of Parliament.
I ask myself, why only fifteen? Why not many more? If there is the possibility of influence, if there is the possibility of patronage, it applies not only to those who have received Crown briefs but to those who have not. It applies also to those who live in hopes of them, because every hon. Member who is a member of the Bar and is eligible for a Crown brief is equally affected by the possibility of patronage, whether he receives one or not. Therefore, the problem is not dismissed by saying that only forty-five Members of Parliament have received Crown briefs.

Mr. Bell: Fifteen.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged for the correction; only fifteen Members of Parliament have received Crown briefs. What about all the others? Are they not deserving of consideration? Have any of them refused Crown briefs?

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that many hon. Members of this House are lawyers


only by qualification, and that there are not nearly as many as is supposed who are practising barristers?

Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of that. I do not want to give any secrets away. It does not affect my decision on how I shall vote on this Clause. It must be remembered, however, that as long as this patronage exists, the Attorney-General is answerable in the House of Commons for how he exercises it. There may or may not have been complaints in recent years about how it is exercised. I have heard criticisms from time to time, not made by Members of Parliament but by people outside the House, because the exercise of any patronage is naturally a legitimate subject for criticism.
I would remind the Committee that if it is said that the power of the Attorney-General to give Crown briefs to a selected number of Members of Parliament is a kind of patronage which may influence their votes, and it might, then that is something we should examine. We must examine it, however, in the context of the whole of the patronage to which Members of Parliament may be exposed.
I will consider first those on the opposite benches and then those on this side of the Committee. It seems to me that Members on the Government Benches, whether barristers or not, are continually exposed to the possibility of patronage, because they always stand, at the risk of being offered or not offered some Ministerial appointment. After all, there are sixty or seventy Ministers of the Crown. There are a large number of ex-Ministers, some of whom are adorning the benches opposite at present, and nearly all the remainder are potential Ministers, all hoping one day or another to receive Government patronage.
Placed against that background, it seems to me that the patronage to which a member of the Bar who is a Government supporter is exposed is minimal. In fact, experience shows that a barrister who is a Government supporter is far more likely to receive Ministerial office than judicial preferment. There are, for example, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of Education, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the

Minister of Pensions. Other names will occur to other hon. Members. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of Minsteral preferment and advancement is a reason for excluding them from this House. Therefore, why should the possibility of giving them a Crown brief be a reason?
I now turn to hon. Members on this side. I should like to know what the Attorney-General thinks. I am not sure whether it is deliberate or whether it is accidental that the distribution of these Crown briefs among members of the Bar on both sides of the House appears to have some relation to the proportion of Members on the two sides. I should have thought that was accidental because —and here the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong——

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman heard me say that the question of membership of a political party had nothing to do with it or, indeed, with membership of the House of Commons, and I should have thought he would have accepted that.

Mr. Fletcher: That was what I expected the Attorney-General to say.

The Attorney-General: I have said it.

Mr. Fletcher: I am very glad to have given the Attorney-General an opportunity of repeating it and putting it beyond dispute. This leads me to my further point. Surely it cannot be suggested—and here I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley will help me—that in so far as the Attorney-General of the day distributes Crown briefs to Members of the Opposition they are influenced in any way whatever by the Crown briefs they receive or do not receive. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has suggested that any Member on these benches during the tenure of office of the Attorney-General has, by reason of receiving Crown briefs, been any less likely to vote against the Government than he would otherwise have been.
May I take one glaring example which, I think, is a classical illustration of this? In the days when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) was Attorney-General, he had the opportunity of disposing of


what was, I suppose, the most remunerative Crown briefs that had been distributed for a very long time. I refer to the Nuremberg trials of war criminals. The fees on those briefs have been published. I do not know why the Attorney-General need be reticent about giving the figures of other Crown briefs if he is pressed for them. They were given by his predecessor and they are all in HANSARD. The total fees paid——

The Attorney-General: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I have no information about what fees are paid. It is a very different thing to secure information about what fees are paid in a particular case, such as in the Nuremberg case, and those paid generally. I am never informed, nor is my Department, what fees are paid to counsel. I said that before.

Mr. Fletcher: I heard that, but with great respect I could not accept it. I believe that if the Attorney-General wanted to inform himself of the fees that are paid, and of the fees marked on any brief for which he is responsible for nomination, he would not have the slightest difficulty in obtaining that information. He has only to ask for it and he can compel its production. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley or anyone else wants this information he is entitled to have it.
As I have said, I do not think that the Attorney-General need be reticent about it. In the case of his predecessor there was no reticence. The figures are in HANSARD. The total fees paid to members of the Bar attending Nuremberg were £52,396. The largest or second largest fee was paid to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, the present Lord Chancellor, who was one of the most distinguished opponents of the Labour Government of the day. His fees, I believe, were either £14,000 or £24,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "£24,000."] The Attorney-General of the day delivered briefs to the value of £24,000 to the present Lord Chancellor, who was then Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Could it possibly be argued that the exercise of patronage by the Attorney-General of the day to his foremost political opponent diminished in any degree the vehemence with which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe con-

tinuously opposed the policy of the Labour Government?

Mr. Wigg: I tried to be fair in my argument. I was aware of these facts, but I did not use them. I did not use them because there is an obvious reply to the question. There is an argument which can be used but which I refrained from using and which is now forced out of me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) gave those briefs to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe not for favours at present but for favours to come so that——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): I do not think that the hon. Member should cast a reflection upon another hon. Member of this House.

Mr. Wigg: It would perhaps be as well. Mr. Blackburn, before I earn the rebuke of the Chair, that I should be guilty of the charge made against me. I did not make a reflection and I was very careful to say that I refrained from using that argument. But if it is put to me directly, and it has been put to me directly, what is my answer? Then surely, in all fairness, I have to put the consideration which influenced me, not in putting the argument, but in refraining from doing so. If it can be argued and I am asked directly whether the granting of these briefs exempts the charge of patronage, I can fairly say that the opposite conclusion can in fact be drawn.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not follow my hon. Friend's argument. I was trying to argue that from facts, which ought to be in the minds of the Committee, the distribution of this patronage could not possibly, and did not, affect the political opinions or activities of political opponents.

Mr. Wigg: I am not making, nor have I made, any aspersion on an hon. Member of this House who is now a Member or has been a Member. What I am answering is whether in fact the argument can be used, and clearly it can.

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend has made his point. In my view, it is quite proper that these facts should be known and that the Committee should know that all these considerations were in the minds of the Select Committee in coming to the practically unanimous decision—not entirely unanimous, but by an overwhelming majority—to reject the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

Mr. Wigg: I want to make it absolutely clear that in the course of the questions which I put to the Attorney-General, and in the course of my arguments today and on previous occasions, I have gone out of my way to be careful not to get involved in just the considerations which my hon. Friend has forced upon the Committee.

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley says that I have forced these considerations on the Committee. I think that it is much better, in order that the Committee may come to a decision about these matters, that it should have the facts, because without all the facts no one can come to the best conclusion. I have mentioned them as being relevant to the decision to which the Committee ought to come. In my view, these facts show that the existence of this patronage for which the Attorney-General is answerable in this House cannot be said at any time within living memory to have influenced the political view or the political criticism or expression of opinion of any Member on either side of the House.
There is a further matter which I think ought to be urged in opposition to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, and it is this. As long as there are members of the Bar in this House—and I hope there always will be—then it seems to me that, apart from the interests of Parliament, it is in the interests of the administration of justice, which is just as important as the efficient conduct of our Parliamentary life, that if the Attorney-General of the day thinks that for the better conduct of some criminal case or civil case in the courts a nomination should be made to a member of the Bar who is also a Member of this House, he should make that nomination. It would be contrary to the interests of justice to fetter the hands of the Attorney-General in this way by imposing this disqualification.
I thought it necessary, in view of the attitude of a number of my hon. Friends, to give the reasons for which I came to this conclusion in the Select Committee and for which I remain of the same opinion today.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: As the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) pointed out, when this matter was before

the Select Committee I was the one Member to vote in favour of the Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I am never afraid of being in a minority of one, because it is the safest position to be in. You are responsible for nobody else but yourself. As soon as a single person joins you, you have to have regard to how far you may be responsible for having exerted undue influence on him. I say quite frankly that if the matter were before the Select Committee again this afternoon, I should move my hon. Friend's Clause and should vote for it.
We discovered in the course of the Committee's deliberations that a man who accepted some office for which no fees were paid at all and which even involved him in considerable expense became disqualified from being a Member of this House, although it could not be said that holding the office in the slightest degree influenced his conduct in Parliament. Everybody knows that since 1945 we have had a succession of the most trivial cases in which it has been held that Members on both sides of the House were disqualified. Consider the case of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir R. Jennings) who, out of a good heart, audited the accounts of the local British Legion Club. To do that he had to have his name inserted on a list. He received no fee and, in fact, he did not do the work. A salaried servant of his firm did the work. Nevertheless, he was disqualified.
It has been held against my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley in dealing with anomalies which have existed that the House has already struck the Clause out of the Bill which raised some doubt about the position of contract.

Mr. R. Bell: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say "struck the Clause out of the Bill". It should be "struck the provision out of the law".

Mr. Ede: There was some argument between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, and when two lawyers disagree——

The Attorney-General: I think that in this connection the right hon, Gentleman was right. The original Bill which came before the Committee contained the Clause relating to contract. The Select Committee, on considering the matter,


struck it out. If I may arbitrate in this dispute, I would give the verdict to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman also gives it in favour of himself. Meticulous lawyers might think the judgment was suspect, but I am prepared to leave it at that.
Next, there was the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) who supplied some stationery to the Home Office when I was Home Secretary. This was just before he was a Member, but this small series of transactions continued afterwards. Nobody suggested that there was any bad faith on his part, but he was disqualified. But let us consider the position of a man who is a Member of the House and an architect and who is asked to act as architect on the erection of some large Government building. He would have professional fees paid in respect of it, but he would not be disqualified. That is the position with regard to the professions generally.
I have been quite consistent on this matter. As will be seen from page 1xx of the Report of the Select Committee, I moved an Amendment to add to the Clause then under discussion certain words—after alluding to
the high reputation at home and abroad of the House of Commons for disinterestedness and incorruptibility…
the words continued:
…your Committee recommend that the immediate attention of the House should be given to the framing of legislation to deal, (in the light of modern commercial, trade and professional conditions and practices), with the situation thus created.
I myself do not think it right that we should now be in the position in which a person having a contract with the Government should be entitled to sit in the House. He could not sit on any local authority in the country if he were in that position. Of course, the creation of the joint stock companies has created a position which makes it very difficult indeed to arrive at any logical conclusion, unless the House is prepared to examine this question a great deal further, and I hope it will decide to do so.
Everyone who has spoken so far in this debate, except my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, is a lawyer of one branch

or other of the profession, and the way in which the lawyers' minds are capable of producing the argument for the moment in spite of all that has been said before is a constant source of wonder to me. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and myself were very keen on a very different position being taken up. We said, "Do not have a list of offices which disqualify a man from being a Member of the House of Commons, but disqualify from holding the offices any man who becomes a Member of Parliament holding them."
What was the lawyers' argument on that in Committee? They said, "You might have a judge of the High Court who inadvertently was elected a Member of Parliament. He went through all the processes of election; he was nominated, he addressed meetings and he was elected. He served in the House for some time. Then it was suddenly discovered that he was a judge. We therefore cannot have this revolutionary proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the right hon. and unlearned Member for South Shields. This man might even have sentenced somebody to be hanged, and a couple of years afterwards it might be discovered that he was simultaneously a judge and a Member of Parliament. What could you do about the poor fellow who had been hanged on his sentence?"
The Committee must examine very carefully the way in which, in future, what the Attorney-General called the quasi-contractual nature of certain relationships between individual Members of Parliament and Government Departments is dealt with. In reply to such people as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) I would say that I would carry this arrangement further and include all professions. In this matter we are adopting a lower standard for the House of Commons than we do for any local authority. A man cannot draw a fee in respect of work he does for a local authority as long as he is a member of it; in fact, in the Local Government Act of 1933 the House went so far as to say that a man must cease to be a member of a local authority for a year before he could draw a fee or wage in respect of any work he did for it.
This House should be at least as careful of its own Members as it is of the members of local authorities. I hope that


the Committee will realise that what, in the past, was regarded as a safeguard in the matter of contracts has now completely disappeared, and that it will be the duty of the House in the not too distant future to have regard to that fact on the general issue, and not merely upon the particular issue with which we are dealing here.
If I were to adopt the argument of the lawyers I should be quite entitled to say that it is not what may happen today but what may happen in the future with which we must be concerned. The Attorney-General was quite frank with the Select Committee. He gave figures in April last year with regard to the position, and as far as I can follow from the figures which he then gave there have been two nominations in the months that have intervened. He said that there were thirteen, and now there are fifteen. There is no dispute between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself about this matter.
While he was in office one would expect that briefs should be shared in the way mentioned. I gather that not very many of these briefs represent any very large sums. There may be one or two in tax cases, where the hearing was protracted and the subject difficult——

The Attorney-General: And the case perhaps went through several courts.

Mr. Ede: Yes—that is one way of protracting a case. When I was presiding on the appeal committee of a quarter sessions only a week or two ago my colleagues and I declared as a nullity a certain decision reached by a bench below. The member of the Bar who had argued against it being a nullity thanked me after lunch for the decision that we had come to because, he said, "It means that I shall get another brief out of the same case."
With regard to the case that my hon. Friend adduced, I think it was a pity that any individual names should have been adduced, so injecting an amount of heat into the debate which might well have been avoided. The figures that occurred in that case have rarely been equalled in this sort of case in recent years. We are not going back to days of Lord Halsbury; we are dealing with the modern practice.
5.15 p.m.
There is no doubt that occasionally in the past this opportunity has been abused. It may have been in the distant past, but it has happened. Adopting the argument about the judge who might have been inadvertently elected a Member of Parliament without anybody finding it out, I should have thought that it would be better to preclude the possibility of it happening. I regard as one of the chief dangers of democracy the suggestion which is rampant in America and is occasionally heard here, that nobody is in public life for the good of his health; he is in it for the takings that can be made. One occasionally hears it from people who have no weight at all in this country, who just cannot believe that anybody ever does anything unless there is a considerable profit attached to it.
I argued the same way with regard to another Amendment. Members of Parliament are entitled to be protected from that sort of insinuation. Therefore, speaking in rather more numerous company than I did in Committee, I want to say that I shall vote for the new Clause. I am authorised by those who settle policy to say that they recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it.

Mr. Usborne: The matter we have been discussing is of intense importance and raises many issues. I would have wished to speak at great length upon it, but I will try to cut my remarks to the minimum. I regret that I have been called so late in the day, because there was one small question upon which I wanted to concentrate and which it would have been easier to have deployed had I had the luck to speak almost immediately after the Attorney-General.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has done the Committee a great service in raising this issue, although I believe that the case against the new Clause is rather strong. He worried the Attorney-General while he was speaking, and at one point the Attorney-General rose and said he was sorry that he had not made himself clear. The fact is that he should have been sorry because he did make himself clear. He made it abundantly clear to me, at any rate, that he was exerting a form of patronage because, in his office, as a lawyer himself he was claiming the right to appoint all the other lawyers to work


for all the other Ministries, and he seemed to think that that was perfectly sound.
My objection to patronage arises when it is concentrated. I admit that it happens in all walks of life and in all ways, but the more it is spread out the less dangerous and harmful it is. I therefore ask the Committee to consider carefully the possibility that it might be better if the various Departments and Government Ministries were allowed to choose their own counsel, even if they chose their favourites—because in that context the word "favourites" would mean those who would do the best jobs for them. On the other hand, the Attorney-General, as a senior member of his union, is more concerned in seeing that all the lawyers get a fair crack of the whip. I want to see that Government Departments get good service for the fees they pay.
If it could be logically argued that the Attorney-General, being head of a profession, should have a monopoly in the appointment of members of that profession, why should it not be equally valid to say that if the Minister of Supply were the head of the engineering section he should always appoint the consulting engineers for any Government Department which wanted an advisory opinion from a qualified engineer? The very suggestion is too absurd to contemplate, but it is exactly analogous.
I think there would be a lot to be said for an arrangement whereby more than one person had the responsibility for handing out the briefs for the ten or twenty Departments—I do not know how many different Ministries and Departments there are—which have to obtain the services of qualified lawyers. I think it would be an improvement, and if this could be secured and nothing else, I still think that this would have been a very

valuable debate. I think it would be far better if the learned Attorney-General stopped hogging this particular patronage and allowed it to be more widely spread.

Mr. Jack Jones: I speak for the first time on this Bill, and probably the lawyers in the Committee will ask what my qualifications are for speaking now.
I was one of the very few laymen who came to this House in 1945 to be disqualified. It was found by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, that very respected person, when he was Minister of Labour, that lawyers could not do the job of maintaining industrial peace, and it was decided that I should take the place of an eminent lawyer on an appeals tribunal in Manchester. The eminent lawyer knew quite a lot, but he did not understand human beings or workshop practice. When I came to this House, having lost money by going to the tribunal from a highly paid job, I was disqualified, but if the provisions of this Clause had been in operation and Mr. Bevin had said to me, "If you earn £100 on this job, you do not come to Parliament," he could have had his job.
It is because I believe in preventing any good man who may be selected by future Labour Party Ministers—and it will not be so long before they arrive—from being disqualified from sitting in the House and other people, with political convictions—and who are called upon in the middle of a war to keep the peace in industry because they know something about industry—from running the risk of disqualification, that I shall support the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 218.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[5.22 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Brockway, A. F.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)


Albu, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burke, W. A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Balfour, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Callaghan, L. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Benson, G.
Carmichael, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Chapman, W. D.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Bowles, F. G.
Clunie, J.
Dodds, N. N.


Boyd, T. C.
Coldrick, W.
Donnelly, D. L.




Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William


Dye, S.
Lawson, G. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lewis, Arthur
Ross, William


Forman, J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, E. W.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
MacColl, J. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gibson, C. W.
McGovern, J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Greenwood, Anthony
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mason, Roy
Steele, T.


Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hastings, S.
Monslow, W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Healey, Denis
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Morrison, Rt.Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Thornton, E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Timmons, J.


Hobson, C. R.
Moss, R.
Viant, S. P.


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Holmes, Horace
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Watkins, T. E.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hoy, J. H.
Oliver, G. H.
West, D. G.


Hubbard, T. F.
Oram, A. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, M.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, W.J.
Wigg, George


Hunter, A. E.
Padley, W. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paton, John
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Johnson, Howard (Rugby)
Pentland, N.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Popplewell, E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Prootor, W. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John



Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Redhead, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reeves, J.
Mr. Rogers and Mr. John Taylor.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Grimond, J.


Aitken, W. T.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cole, Norman
Grosvenor, L.-Col. R. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gurden, Harold


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Anstruther-Gray, Major sir William
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Arbuthnot, John
Crouch, R. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Armstrong, C. W.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Ashton, H.
Cunningham, Knox
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Atkins, H. E.
Currie, G. B. H.
Hay, John


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dance, J. C. G.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Baldwin, A. E.
Davidson, Viscountess
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Rt-Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Barber, Anthony
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barlow, Sir John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Barter, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Doughty, C. J. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
du Cann, E. D. L.
Holt, A. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hope, Lord John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Duncan, Capt J. A. L.
Hornby, R. P.


Bidgood, J. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.




Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Howard, John (Test)


Bishop, F. P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Body, R. F.
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Fletcher, Eric
Hurd, A. R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Braine, B. R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Godber, J. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gomme-Dunoan, Col. Sir Alan
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Cough, C. F. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gower, H. R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Burden, F. F. A.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Keegan, D.


Campbell, Sir David
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Cary, Sir Robert
Green, A.
Kerr, H. W.


Channon, Sir Henry
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kimball, M.







Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ormsby-Core, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Leavey, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Osborne, C.
Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife, E.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Page, R. G.
Storey, S.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Parker, J.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Partridge, E.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Temple, John M.


Longden, Gilbert
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thompson, Lt. Cdr, R. (Croydon, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pitman, I. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pott, H. P.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry




Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Powell, J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Maddan, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
vane, W. M. F.


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ramsden, J. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Rawlinson, Peter
Vickers, Miss Joan


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Redmayne, M.
Wade, D. W.


Maude, Angus
Renton, D. L. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Rippon, A. G. F.
Wall, Major Patrick


Mawby, R. L.
Robertson, Sir David
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouh)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Sharples, R. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Neave, Airey
Shepherd, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nicholls, Harmar
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Woollam, John Victor


Nugent, C. R. H.
Spearman, Sir Alexander



Oakshott, H. D.
Speir, R. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Mr. Wills and Mr. Bryan.

First Schedule.—(OFFICES DISQUALIFYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, to leave out "of Assize" and to insert:
exercising jurisdiction under section seventy of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or section one of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956".
This is rather an important Amendment, and I hope that there will be no last minute decision to resist it. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the effect of the Bill in its present form will be to disqualify the Lord Privy Seal, my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice).
I should have thought it obvious that when the Select Committee was referring to "Commissioner of Assize," the reference was to those who sit on assizes sometimes in addition to the High Court judge and sometimes when the High Court judge cannot be present. Unfortunately, the expression, "Commissioner of Assize" has a wider meaning than that. The actual commission, which is read at the beginning of any assize, is a formidable document. In the commission, as commissioners of assize, are named, among others, the Lord Privy Seal and all the "silks" on the circuit; and, there-

fore, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, who is such an ornament of the Midland Circuit, would be disqualified from being a Member of this House unless this Amendment is agreed to.
Of course, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) would be in a like position. So I hope that we shall gain support from both sides of the Committee for this Amendment, the effect of which is to limit the disqualification of commissioners of assize to those who, in fact, act as commissioners.

Sir Frank Soskice: After the right hon. and learned Gentleman's exposition of this most important Amendment, I feel that I should declare an interest which I did not know about before, and accordingly I declare it. In view of the arguments which he has adduced, I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will support the Amendment.

Mr. Clement Davies: My position has already been explained by the Attorney-General, but may I assure the Committee that I did my best to persuade my colleagues to omit the commissioners of assize for the very reason advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 21, to leave out from "Wales" to the end of line 25, and to insert:
,Temporary Judge of such a Court or Deputy Judge of such a Court appointed by the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or acting with the approval of the Lord Chancellor under paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section eleven of the County Courts Act, 1934".
This Amendment carries out more accurately the intention behind the pro- vision put into the Bill by the Select Committee. The Committee will see that there is a reference to a judge of a county court in England or Wales or his deputy being disqualified, subject to certain conditions—namely, if they were appointed under certain subsections, or if they acted for more than fourteen days at any time. What I feel sure that the Select Committee had in mind was not to disqualify a member of the Bar who occasionally acts, owing to the sickness of a county court judge, or for some reason of that kind, but—and I agree with the Select Committee—to disqualify anyone who sits regularly as a deputy county court judge or indeed, as a county court judge.
The effect of the Amendment is to secure the disqualification of anyone appointed by the Lord Chancellor or acting, although appointed by the county court judge, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. We leave it open for a county court judge himself to secure someone to sit in his stead, if that person be qualified to do so, on a particular day, because of illness or some other reason. But we remove any possibility of patronage by the Lord Chancellor in this connection, because if a person is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, or with his approval, that would effect the disqualification.
I hope that I have made the matter clear. It is complicated, but I do not think the Committee would wish me to spend more time on it. I think that the Amendment carries out the intention of the Select Committee.

Mr. C. Davies: May I ask whether it is clear that if a Member of this House has a case in a county court, and is asked to deputise for the judge, he runs no risk of disqualification? It may be that, unfortunately, the judge is taken suddenly ill. He may request that the hon. Member take his place and finish the case

which is being heard. If the hon. Member consents to do so, is it clear that he runs no risk of being disqualified?

The Attorney-General: I had hoped that I made clear that the Amendment disqualifies temporary judges and all the deputy county court judges appointed by the Lord Chancellor or by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, It also disqualifies deputies appointed by a county court judge, but only insofar as they act with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, which approval they would get only if they had acted for more than fourteen days. So in the case referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) there would be no disqualification.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 28, leave out from "Judge" to end of line 29 and insert:
or Temporary County Court Judge in Northern Ireland within the meaning of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, or the deputy of such a Judge."—[Mr. Simon.]

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, at the end to insert:
Chairman or paid Deputy Chairman of a court of quarter sessions for the county in Lancashire.
The Bill already imposes a general disqualification on the Recorder of London, on the Common Serjeant, on the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, and on the Chairman or paid Deputy-Chairman of London Quarter Sessions. On the other hand, there are local disqualifications for the recorders of boroughs and the chairmen or deputy-chairmen of quarter sessions.
The Chairman and paid Deputy-Chairman of Lancashire Quarter Sessions do not fall precisely within either of those groups. The Chairman is a paid judge, and therefore, on the principle which animates the Bill, should, plainly, be subject to a general disqualification. He holds a whole-time judicial office, and he is not permitted to practise. There is not at present a paid deputy-chairman; the local county court judge acts as deputy-chairman, but it is possible that in the future one will be appointed. It seems right that he, too, should be subject to disqualification.

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman help me on this point? Let us assume that we can get back to the days when lawyers of distinction, sometimes retired from practice, were willing to act as chairmen of quarter sessions without payment. Being justices for the county they were willing to accept the position and to receive no money. It is only in recent years, in Middlesex, that the difficulty of finding ordinary justices sufficiently qualified in the law to act as chairmen has driven the county to have a paid chairman. The Amendment does not say "paid chairman". As I read it, it would disqualify a lawyer of distinction who was acting voluntarily as chairman of quarter sessions. In view of the fact that the word "paid" is in front of the word "deputy-chairman", ought not that word to be also in front of "chairman" rather than as it stands?

Mr. Simon: The reason for the chairman being disqualified is not that he is paid. He has a whole-time appointment and is not permitted to practise. Therefore, he is rightly subject to a general disqualification, on the ground not that he is paid, but that he holds a whole-time judicial office. He is in a position analogous with that of the Recorder of London and the other recorders I have mentioned.

Sir Ian Fraser: I have sympathy with the view presented by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I recall when the late Lord Roche, who died only a few weeks ago, felt that he was too old to continue, and——

The Attorney-General: The Amendment has nothing to do with any quarter sessions outside Lancashire.

Sir I. Fraser: May I go on, Sir Gordon, until you, rather than the Attorney-General, should find me out?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am afraid that the hon. Member is out of order.

Sir I. Fraser: Might I be allowed to present at least one argument before you assume that, Sir Gordon? It was in the County of Oxford, it is true, but there is a parallel.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment is confined to Lancashire.

Sir I. Fraser: If there were such a distinguished lawyer as we have in mind who was willing to do this job unpaid, why should not he do it, as Lord Roche did a similar job in the County of Oxford? We are deliberately debarring ourselves of a very useful service.

Amendment agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert:
Umpire or Deputy Umpire appointed for the purposes of section forty-three of the National Service Act, 1948.
The Amendment raises a point which is common to a series of subsequent Amendments and, Sir Gordon, with your permission, I will indicate what it is when moving this Amendment. I will deal first with the details of this Amendment.
Umpires or deputy umpires were appointed for the purposes of the National Service Act, 1948, to hear appeals from the military hardship committees and from reinstatement committees. Upon examination, the Bill appeared to be a little defective, because as it now stands all the members of the military service hardship committees are disqualified while all the members of the reinstatement committees are exempt.
The Committee may think it anomalous that this appellate tribunal should not be disqualified in view of the fact that it hears appeals from a committee which is disqualified. We feel that we should try to get a greater measure of uniformity throughout the Bill on this point than was apparent when it came back from the Select Committee.
We reached the conclusion, which we now commend to the Committee, that the right principle to follow with regard to these tribunals and various kinds of committees appointed under the National Assistance, National Insurance and National Service Acts is to disqualify the chairman, who is usually a whole-time official and usually paid, to disqualify the deputy-chairman—or the "reserve-chairman", as he is sometimes called—but not to disqualify the members. The members


probably sit intermittently and are probably drawn from a panel. They fall into a very different category from the chairman and deputy-chairman.
The Bill is also a little misleading as it stands, in the way it deals with the chairmen of the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries local tribunals. These chairmen are subject under the Bill to a local disqualification. In fact, though they normally preside over particular local tribunals, they are appointed for all tribunals in the country, so the local disqualification imposed in Part IV of the Schedule would, in practice, amount to total disqualification. There would have to be an Amendment to deal with that.
The Bill rings the changes on almost every method of dealing with the various committees and tribunals. Let me give examples. Under the Bill, the chairmen and the members of the military service hardship committees are subject to total disqualification. The chairmen of the National Assistance appeal tribunals are disqualified, but their members are exempt. The chairmen, members and assessors of the National Insurance tribunals are subject only to local disqualification, and so on.
We have considered these matters to try to get a measure of uniformity which ought to facilitate the operation of the Bill. It seems to us that the right way is for the Bill to deal with these bodies by providing for the general disqualification of the chairman and, where they exist, of the deputy or reserve chairman, but to exempt the members, assessors and local referees. Generally speaking, the chairman has a professional qualification and is paid for his work.
The members, on the other hand, sit intermittently and usually exercise only a local jurisdiction. They derive from the carrying on of their duties little or no profit, even if we interpret that word in the somewhat artificial sense to which those who have had to deal with this subject have become accustomed.
This is the first of a whole series of Amendments which accord with that policy. If the Committee would accept the conclusion that this is the right way to deal with this problem it might save time when moving Amendments which are consistent with this one if I merely

indicate that they are consistent with the principle I now put before the Committee.

Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that in his approach to a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper he has sought to achieve some uniformity whereas, I entirely agree with him, before there was considerable confusion. I should have thought that, broadly, he has drawn the line in about the right place. It does not seem reasonable that members of a number of these bodies, who, through public motives, contribute merely part-time service in return for very little if any remuneration and often at considerable expense to themselves, should be disqualified. On the other hand, the chairmen of the various tribunals and other bodies to which the Amendments relate do fall within the scope of those regularly employed in Government service who ought to be disqualified.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked where we on this side of the Committee would seek to draw the line. I can only speak for myself, but I think it would be reasonable to differentiate between the part-time member who occasionally sits and does so out of a motive to help in a public service with very little remuneration to himself on the one hand, and the person who is fully and wholly employed as a chairman or president of a tribunal on the other. I should think that the Bill with this Amendment would be rightly framed and that the principle on which the Amendment is based, broadly speaking, would be applicable to other similar cases which are to be dealt with by later Amendments.

Sir Patrick Spens: I was very glad to hear what the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said, but I thought the speech of the Attorney-General—I shall not say reflected on the work of the Select Committee—indicated that we had been thoroughly illogical in a great number of recommendations we made. We were all intent, so far as possible, on reducing the disqualifications to the lowest possible number. That is what we wanted. Although, tonight, I shall be moving one or two Amendments to provide for additional disqualifications, I shall do so only because they were not brought to our attention.
On the question of whether members of these tribunals as well as the chairmen and deputy or reserve chairmen should be disqualified, we did not recommend that members of such tribunals should be disqualified except on the basis of the evidence of the duties they have to perform. I am delighted to accept as a general principle that chairmen and reserve chairmen only should be disqualified, and I felt at the time that very few of the duties justify total exclusion of members of a number of these tribunals. If the Committee thinks that we ought to limit disqualification to chairmen and deputy chairmen I would very much rejoice in such a decision on principle.
Turning to the actual Amendment on which this discussion is going forward, it adds the disqualification of the
Umpire or Deputy Umpire appointed for the purposes of section forty three of the National Service Act, 1948.
Of course, if the existence of such an office had been brought to our attention, having disqualified the whole or part of the tribunals from whom appeals lie, I have not the slightest doubt that we would have thought that the umpires ought also to be disqualified, so I support the Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: I used the expression about considerable confusion, but I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) did not misunderstand me as referring to the work of the Select Committee. What I meant was confusion in the law which has existed for decades and which law it is now sought to change.

Mr. C. Davies: I quite agree with the Attorney-General that it is desirable to get uniformity. Here we have the matter left in a rather chaotic position in which part-time members are excluded and the full-time umpire is not excluded. I can understand the desire of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the Bill more logical by adding that the umpire and his deputy shall be excluded, but I wish to get uniformity in a much better way.
Why is it that all the time the object which seems to be in the minds of the Government and, unfortunately, of so many hon. Members on this side of the Committee, is to narrow the qualification of membership of this House? That is

what all the time we are being asked to do. Now we are asked to make an umpire and his deputy incapable of sitting in this House. I should have thought that it was now becoming obvious to everyone here that what is desired is to make the House of Commons open to anyone in the country in any walk of life. The wider the qualification, the better it would be, not only for the country, but certainly for debates in this House.
That has been my attitude throughout. Instead of extending the Schedules, we should make them as short as we can and, if possible, do away with them altogether. Here, in speech after speech, we make someone or other incapable of sitting in this House because he is doing excellent work in some other capacity. That work may be quite compatible with membership of this House, and if he were to be a Member he would be enabled, because of experience gained in these matters, to assist us in our debates.
I could have intervened when we were discussing the proposed new Clauses. The same principle runs in regard to them all—to make something or other which some hon. Member does a reason for disqualifying him from sitting in this House. I would much have preferred membership of this House to remain dominant and, if anything had to go, that should be the job or the position held by the hon. Member concerned. At this time, when democracy is making the fight of its life, that is more essential than ever.
At a time when we are taking much more interest in individual life in this country, and when all kinds of positions have to be undertaken in regard to administration—when we are seeking men to do those jobs and try to choose the best men for them—we are asked to say. "You shall not sit in the House of Commons because you are occupying that post". I object to the way in which this matter has been approached. I would very much prefer that, instead of adding disqualifications, we excluded from disqualification not only members of tribunals but also the umpire and deputy and got uniformity in that way.

The Attorney-General: It is true that this Amendment consists of an addition, but it is an addition of persons fulfilling judicial functions of an appellate character. I feel confident that the Committee, if it


had to consider the case, would come to the conclusion that the tenure of these offices because of its character is incompatible with membership of this House.
I think I am right in saying that the other Amendments fall into much the same category as this Amendment. They are all restricting the area of disqualification and I should hope for the support of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for them. In the Bill as it stands members of those Committees are disqualified, and by adopting this procedure we shall remove the disqualification from them. To that extent, at least, I hope that the Amendment will receive the support of the right hon. and learned Member.

Mr. C. Davies: The Attorney-General should realise that the principle for which I contend very nearly succeeded. We asked for and obtained a Bill in what is called the reverse order. It was a very much better work. For that principle I still contend, and I ask that these Schedules should be cut down instead of additions being made to them.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I would point out that the position was even better than that outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). This afternoon there have been some sarcastic references to the size of minorities. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and myself, who supported the views which he has put forward, were defeated by only one vote in the Select Committee when this matter was under consideration. The odds were very good. They were three to two, which, I understand, is regarded as far better than eleven to one against.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the vote was taken just after half-past three, when a very interesting scene was proceeding on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Ede: It all depends whether hon. Members want to take part in the frivolities of the House and in exciting scenes, or in the hard work of Committees. That was what happened. It is true that some people regarded the Committee as of so little importance that they stayed away. Those who attended are entitled to such

small credit as they earned for running the official gang to one vote on the Committee.
I agree with what was said on this matter by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). We had a number of these very highly complicated matters brought in front of us and we tried to proceed according to a general principle. We knew at the time that there might well be similar offices which had not been brought to our attention and we asked that those who were responsible for helping the Government in framing the Bill should bring to their notice any similar cases which had not been brought in front of us. That is why I support the Amendment, in the way in which it has been moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert:
Chairman or deputy chairman, appointed under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1938, of a court of quarter sessions.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the Committee will find it convenient to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert:
Recorder of a municipal borough having a separate court of quarter sessions.
It might also be convenient to discuss the two Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), in page 17, to leave out lines 41 to 44; and in page 18, to leave out lines 1 to 7; and the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley, in page 17, line 41. to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 7, in page 18.

Mr. Wigg: May I, first, tell the Attorney-General that I do not believe that he appoints recorders and have never believed that he has any special responsibility for their appointment. I put a Question to him on 20th July and he very kindly answered it, and from that time onwards he has time and time again said that he believes that I think he appoints recorders. I think nothing of the kind. There are several black marks which I have against his name, but that is not one of them.
On this Amendment, as on previous Amendments, I have already made my case to the Committee, and I will not weary it by speaking at great length. On the other hand, I do not retract a single word from what I have said previously.
I can sum up my arguments in this way. When I look at those who hold the office of recorder—past and present recorders—I can only apply the standards which have served me during my Army career. I know nothing of the law, but when I look at some of the hon. and learned Members—past and present, let me stress—who have held that office and, in holding it, have had the power to remove men's liberties, I can only ask myself what kind of rank would I see them holding if they were wearing uniform.

Mr. Ede: Field marshals.

Mr. Wigg: They may be very good lawyers and they may have enormous capacities for sitting in judgment upon their fellow men, but as far as I am concerned they have managed to disguise it. I have told the House previously—and I have perhaps caused a little offence by so doing—that there are those who hold the office of recorder at present and have held the officer of recorder in the past—because I do not want to place it all on one individual—whom I would not appoint as unpaid lance corporals in an unarmed company of the Pioneer Corps. That is the only assessment which I can make.
It therefore seems to me that they have become eligible for such an appointment not because of their judicial or their professional qualities, but because they are Members of the House of Commons, and I think that that is completely wrong. I have heard no justification at all for giving men judicial preferment because of their political position, nor can I read any justification. This is a piece of jobbery which hangs over from the past. I believe that to a certain extent, although there are doubtless honourable and learned exceptions, it is a piece of jobbery which ought to be got rid of—and this is a good time to get rid of it.
The Attorney-General has told us that he has no responsibility for it and I can, therefore, reasonably ask him on this occasion, as I have asked him on previous

occasions, for a free vote of the Committee. This is a House of Commons matter. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or the representative of the Home Office, who will probably reply, has some considerable argument to justify the retention of this anachronistic nonsense. If so, I for one will be delighted to hear it, for I am open to conviction——

Mr. Ede: If my hon. Friend got in front of one of these recorders he would be convicted.

Mr. Wigg: I have not the least doubt about that. That is what worries me. What worries me is the thought that one day I may appear with my hat off in front of these gentlemen and that the consequences would be truly appalling to me; and because I should not like it myself, I do not want it for other people.
I do not believe that any hon. Member can possibly justify the appointment of recorders on the basis of purely political qualifications. It is quite wrong. Even if the sentences they passed were only a matter of days, that would be bad enough, but the sentences which a recorder can impose run into years. This is a truly monstrous situation, and I very much hope that, although he is not responsible for it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will join with me in sweeping it away for good and all.

Mr. C. Davies: May I say at once that there is only one phrase which was used by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) with which I agree—"This is a House of Commons matter." What I have been trying to urge upon the Committee throughout is that we are dealing not only with the membership of the present House of Commons but with the membership for many years to come and the question who shall be allowed to come here and who shall be disqualified from coming here.
I may tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not know of any recorder who has been appointed for political reasons. If I may remind the Committee, in the old days—as far back, I think, to some time during the First World War—a man appointed as recorder was disqualified from membership of the House if he was at that time a Member, but he was at once allowed to present himself for reelection. That usually gave rise to a


by-election, so that it was a very expensive post for a Member to get, and very rarely was it sought by any Member because he knew of the great expense involved in getting what was, after all, largely a post of honour—because the fees for sitting are really trumpery.
I do not know of anyone seeking this office merely for political reasons Usually what happens is that the leaders of the circuit are chosen for the office, and there is competition among them for it.

Mr. Wigg: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking with authority, and can assure me that all the recorders at present in the House of Commons were appointed on a seniority basis as leaders of their circuit——

Mr. Davies: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigg: —or that the overwhelming majority of them were leaders of their circuit, I should be considerably assured in one direction. Will he be good enough to tell me whether he is sure of his facts?

Mr. Davies: All I can say is that the recordership of any particular town goes to a member of the circuit in which that town is situated. Usually, it is a leader of that circuit who is chosen, and usually he is chosen, not because of his seniority but because, in the estimation of the appointer, he is the most suitable person.
As I understand, we are taking with this Amendment that dealing with chairmen of quarter sessions. I have already told the Committee that I have had the honour of being chairman of the quarter sessions for the County of Montgomery for twenty-two years. I was not a member of that circuit, but I was Montgomeryshire born and bred. I was appointed, as one was in those days, by my fellow magistrates on the bench. It was not until the Act of 1938 that the appointment had to be confirmed by the Lord Chancellor.
I was a member of the Royal Commission which sat under Earl Peel, in 1934, inquiring into the administration of justice. We strongly recommended that the chairman of quarter sessions should always be a qualified member of the bar. That, undoubtedly, was in the minds of my fellow magistrates when, on the death of my predecessor, they chose me. I may

say that, like so many of my fellow chairmen of quarter sessions, I have no salary. The expenses, such as they are, I have to meet out of my own pocket; and I think that that goes for most chairmen of quarter sessions. That is my position.
6.15 p.m.
I can understand the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley. It is more logical than the Bill is as it is now. He says, "If you are a recorder, or if you are a chairman of quarter sessions, whether paid or not—it does not matter—you should be excluded from sitting in this House." Although, of course, I fundamentally disagree with that, I can understand its logic because, as I have said about other matters, there should be no exclusion.
The only exclusion should be when the office is one which is incompatible in itself with service here. If it is impossible to do the job properly and, at the same time, carry out one's duties here, it is the job that should go and not membership of this House. We are elected, and surely the right thing to do is to accept the honour which the electors have done us, remain Members of the House and reject the posts which are incompatible with that membership.
Let us look at what now happens under the Bill as at present drawn. The suggestion is that I can serve as the Member for Montgomery, and as a chairman of quarter sessions so long as I am not chairman of the quarter sessions for my own County of Montgomery. I may be chairman of quarter sessions in Merioneth, which is adjacent to Montgomeryshire, or in Radnor, or in Shropshire, but I do not want to be chairmen of quarter sessions in any of those places. It is a great honour to be chairman of the quarter sessions of my own county where my own people live, yet it is suggested that I am unqualified for membership of this House and to represent the very place where I have been elected, merely because my colleagues on the magisterial bench think that I am the suitable person to be their chairman—and, as I say, I have had their confidence for all these years now.
If the Bill passes, whether or not the Amendment is accepted, I shall at once have to notify my colleagues on the bench that I have to resign that position, as,


otherwise, I come under the penalties of the Bill. Let me give this example. If my predecessor had continued, and I had been asked by the magistrates of Merioneth—and assuming that my home was there—to be chairman of the Merioneth Quarter Sessions, I could continue to be the chairman in Merioneth and still be the Member for Montgomery; but it is suggested that, in some way or other, because the two posts synchronise, they are incompatible. It is a form of logic that I do not understand. Why should I be disqualified from being a Member of this House?
Let me take another example. It has been suggested that anyone occupying this office of profit under the Crown is, in some way, influenced in his position by what he does, or may use his position as a Member of this House in order that he may, in some way or other, make a stronger appeal for the suffrages of the electors. Would it be suggested for a moment that if I, sitting in quarter sessions, sentenced a man found guilty by the jury, I would thereby be more likely to attract the votes of his family afterwards? I think that the effect would be the reverse.
I am in the proud position of being able to say that never in all the time that I have been a Member of this House and chairman of quarter sessions has anyone ever suggested that I was ever influenced in my chairman's duties by my political opinions; and I do not think that anyone else is. I have such a regard for the honour of this House, and for the honesty and integrity of my colleagues, as to be sure that politics would never enter into anything which I or they had to decide in an occupation outside of the House.
That being so, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley, and that it will also strike out from Part IV of the First Schedule the absurd suggestion that there is a partial disqualification; that one may not be a chairman or a recorder for the very place for which one sits.

Mr. Ede: On this matter I speak for myself alone, but I want to oppose all of these Amendments. I regret that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery

(Mr. C. Davies), with whom I have worked very happily on this Committee except for this one issue, should have raised the personal point that happens to be involved in his case. We are not here legislating for persons. We are making the law of the land which will have to be applied to a very large number of people, and, in spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, I believe that that well-worn aphorism, that justice must not only be done but must be manifestly seen to be done, is the thing that should guide us in these matters.
It is not merely after the jury have returned their verdict that the chairman of quarter sessions is capable, if he is a skilled man, of influencing the course of proceedings. I have known some chairmen of quarter sessions who, I am quite certain, have always produced in the minds of the jury the exact opposite to what they expected to achieve. I have known other chairmen of quarter sessions who, after the bar has done its worst, have been able to influence the minds of the jury very considerably.
It must be a very difficult position for a chairman of quarter sessions to sum up in a case in which a prominent supporter or opponent of his is one of the parties, without people outside drawing conclusions and making insinuations, quite unjustifiably, that the position of the chairman and the relationship between the chairman and the party in the case have been influencing the course that has been taken.
I regret that if the Bill passes as it is now drawn it will mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to make his choice between the House and the chairmanship of quarter sessions. I would have preferred the Bill to be the other way round, but even then he would have been faced with the fact that, being a Member of the House, he would automatically be disqualified from being chairman of quarter sessions.
I think that the holding of judicial office in the area for which a man sits should be a disqualification, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will recollect, I questioned him on whether this ought not to apply even to a justice of the peace sitting in a court of summary jurisdiction. I hold that view myself.

Mr. Lindgren: It certainly does apply where a Member is a member of a lord lieutenant's committee. A member of a lord lieutenant's committee cannot sit as a Member of Parliament for a constituency in which that committee operates.

Mr. Ede: I have been a member of a lord lieutenant's committee, but I took good care to have a seat a long way away from the lord lieutenant.
I would have hoped that the House has now had over many years the kind of feeling that would support the Bill. But I am bound to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that a chairman of quarter sessions or a recorder should not be eligible to sit in this House. I do not agree with what he says about recorders. After all, I was for a time responsible for appointing recorders. It may be that it was the way in which I did the job which persuaded another place to insert in one Bill an Amendment that took the appointment away from me and handed it over to the Lord Chancellor but, having served as a member of a lord lieutenant's committee, and having had to recommend the appointment of recorders, Metropolitan magistrates and other stipendiary magistrates, I want to say that I profoundly disagree with what my hon. Friend has said.
I believe that every one of these appointments is very much of a gamble One recommends for appointment to a justiceship of the peace, a stipendiary magistrateship or a recordership a man in whom one has the utmost confidence in his judicial temperament and his ability to preserve an open mind until he has heard the whole of the case, and then, when the fellow gets on the bench he does the most amazing things.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) will recollect a stipendiary magistrate about whom he came to see me. We do not want to particularise the man's name, but I had interviewed him. I had had recommendations from other members of the legal profession, and I appointed him with the fullest confidence. I do not believe that from the first day he went on to the bench he ever ran according to form—at any rate, as has been revealed to me—and he

was the worst loser that I have ever backed. I had to give him the opportunity of resigning before taking more drastic steps.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was sarcastic about these people and said that he would not have made some of them unpaid lance corporals; but, after all, I have known even unpaid lance corporals who have had to be reduced to the ranks because they could not carry the weight of that exalted office.

Mr. Wigg: That is the point. One can reduce on unpaid lance corporal to the ranks. My right hon. Friend apparently had no difficulty with the stipendiary magistrate——

Mr. Ede: I had a lot of trouble.

Mr. Wigg: —but what about the combination of a recorder who, in the words of my right hon. Friend, is a bad bet and is also a Member of the House? It becomes a much more difficult proposition.

Mr. Ede: No, I do not think so. I remember one recorder who was a Member of the House, with whom I differed on a certain point. I differed with him only once. He conformed to my rules afterwards.
I think that on this matter the Committee, being in the very painful position of having to deal with the case of one of its own Members, has dealt with the matter very carefully and frankly. As I have said before, I regret that it should put the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in the position in which the Bill places him, but I believe that the Bill is right in its general application. I recall once sitting next to the late David Lloyd George on this Bench when there was some discussion going on, and I remarked to him that hard cases make bad law. He said, "They may do, but they make very good politics."
Although the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is a very hard one—and I hope he will excuse me for having been as frank as I have been in stating this matter; it would be unfair to my colleagues on the Committee if I did not state my views—I hope that the Committee will preserve the Bill as it stands, in each of the cases covered by the Amendments under discussion.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Simon: My task in replying has been made very much easier by the weighty intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He has stated much better than I could ever hope to do what are the real arguments against each of these Amendments.
The real question, and the real test in the Bill, is not suitability for office; it is the incompatibility of an office with membership of the House of Commons. I do not accept what was said by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about recorders who hold seats in the House. I should like to add that, if it were a question of suitability for office, no one would think of disqualifying the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He is held in as high respect in legal circles as he is in the House of Commons and in political circles generally. But that is not the test. The test is whether the task of chairmanship of quarter sessions, recordership, and so on, is compatible with service in the House.
That test falls into two parts. Is the office generally incompatible, or is it incompatible in the locality where the recorder is himself a Member? So far as general incompatibility is concerned, it would be very difficult to say that to be a recorder in the South of England would in any way be incompatible with service in the House as a Member representing a constituency in the North of England, for instance; but when it comes to local representation, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, one can imagine all kinds of embarrassments when constituents appear before the court either as witnesses or, more difficult still, as accused. There is bound to be a very real difficulty.
It is unnecessary for me to expatiate upon it because the position has been put so well by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields. For the reasons that he has given, and for those that I have endeavoured to explain, I would advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: Against my better judgment, I am convinced. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out line 13.
I think it would be convenient to take this Amendment with those in page 13, to leave out line 31, and in line 38, at the end to insert:
Chairman or acting Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): Yes.

The Attorney-General: The Committee will see that, under the Bill, the Agricultural Land Tribunal is a body, all members of which are disqualified, and assessors to the Agricultural Land Tribunal are disqualified. In conformity with the argument I advanced in relation to umpires and deputy umpires, we feel that the provision here requires altering. The Amendments take out the Agricultural Land Tribunal and the assessors, and in line 38, in page 13, we insert:
Chairman or acting Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal.
I must make it clear that this is not introducing a new disqualification. It is limiting a disqualification which was originally in the Bill, but it is preserving a disqualification which now exists under the Agriculture Act, 1947, for paid chairmen or acting chairmen.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the members are part-time in this case?

The Attorney-General: I cannot say whether they are part-time; I had not got it in mind. I rather think that they are appointed from a panel.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, at the end to insert:
The Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.
This Tribunal was not brought to the attention of the Select Committee, and it is a matter to which my attention has since been drawn. The Tribunal is appointed by agreement between the Treasury and the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. It deals with questions affecting certain conditions of service in the Civil Service. It consists of an independent chairman and two members. One of the members is drawn from a panel of persons appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and the other is similarly


appointed as representing the Staff Side. The authority for the appointment and remuneration comes from the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. The Chairman and members receive travelling and subsistance allowances on Civil Service rates. The agreement provides that the Chairman of the Tribunal is also President of the Industrial Court or, failing him, a person appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service after consulting with the parties to the Agreement.
It is obvious that this Tribunal has functions to perform which really make membership of the Tribunal incompatible with membership of the House of Commons. It deals with what are very nearly political matters and, following that principle, wherever we found tribunals had to deal with matters which hinge upon political questions or what may be political questions, we recommended disqualification. It seems to me, therefore, that the members of this Tribunal ought also to be disqualified.

Mr. Simon: I need only say that I should advise the Committee to accept the Amendment for the reasons put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens).

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 12, line 5, at the end to insert:
or under the Fifth Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946".
This is to bring the offices in Scotland referred to in the Fifth Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, in line with what we have done as regards the English offices. Again, the point in relation to Scotland was not drawn to the attention of the Select Committee. By the First Schedule of the Bill we have recommended the disqualification of members of the Independent Schools Tribunal in England and Wales. We recommended that because of the duties which such members have, which are very extensive, involving the hearing of appeals from proprietors or teachers in independent schools against complaints which may lead to schools being struck off the Independent Schools Register. We thought that those duties were incompatible with membership of the House of Commons and we recommended their disqualification. It seems right that similar

tribunals in Scotland should be treated in the same way.

Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I am not one of those who is always in favour of Scotland following England in legislation, but in this case it seems to me that the arguments stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) apply so exactly to Scotland in every way that I am happy to support the Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Mall Macpherson): I agree with what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) in the argument he has advanced. I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out line 15.
The Amendment is designed to strike out the proposed disqualification of membership of the Livestock Commission. The reason is that, since the Select Committee was sitting, we were told that the Commission has gone practically into a state of semi-decease, that it has no duties to perform and that some other body is to be constituted instead. In those circumstances, it is quite useless to include the Commission in the Schedule.

Mr. Simon: I should advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that this will not let in, or let out, the inspectors of boars?

Sir P. Spens: We have already put them out.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 15, at the end to insert:
A Medical Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted far the purposes of any such Tribunal.
I suggest that it would be convenient, Mr. Blackburn, to deal at the same time with the following Amendment, also in line 15.

The Temporary Chairman: indicated assent.

The Attorney-General: These two Amendments are to bring into line the Medical Appeal Tribunal and the Medical Board or Pneumoconiosis Medical Board with the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The Pensions Appeal Tribunal is disqualified. In their respective spheres, the Medical Appeal Tribunal and the Medical Board or Pneumoconiosis Medical Board fulfil precisely analogous functions. It therefore seams right that as all three are appellate tribunals they should all be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 15, at end insert:
A Medical Board or Pneumoconiosis Medical Board constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted for the purposes of any such Board.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 19 and 20.
Would it be convenient, Mr. Blackburn, to take at the same time the Amendment in page 14, line 2, at the end, to insert:
Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Military Service (Hardship) Committee constituted under the Third Schedule to the National Service Act, 1948.

The Temporary Chairman: Yes. I think that will be for the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. Simon: There is a group of tribunals and committees under the National Assistance and National Insurance Acts and the National Service Acts which have comparable or related functions and in practice a substantial overlap in membership. These are two of a series of Amendments designed to secure uniformity and consistency of treatment under the Bill for these various adjudicating bodies. The way that they are dealt with in this series of Amendments is the way indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General: in other words, to have a general disqualification of the chairman and, where they exist, the deputy or reserve chairmen, and to exempt the members, the assessors and the local referees from disqualification.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: If I remember rightly, this is one of the cases in which we were assured by the Ministry in question that it would not appoint a Member of Parliament to serve on a hardship committee in his own constituency. There are obvious objections to that. If that is the case, it seems to me wise to support the Amendment and not to list too many of these somewhat minor appointments.
May I be assured that I am right in my recollection and that the Minister of Labour and National Service would not appoint a Member of this House or a candidate to serve in his own constituency? One can see objection in that.

Mr. Simon: I think I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is so. If for any reason I find that this assurance is not correct, I will let him know immediately.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out line 21.
I suggest that this Amendment can be taken with the Amendment to leave out line 42. They are both drafting Amendments. The purpose is to remove from Part II of the First Schedule the entries disqualifying membership of the Milk and Pigs Marketing Boards for Northern Ireland. Members of these Boards are already covered by the entry in Part III at the top of page 16 as members of Northern Irish Agricultural Marketing Boards.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 12, line 34, at the end to insert:
A Panel of Chairmen of Re-instatement Committees constituted under section forty-one of the National Service Act, 1948.
This Amendment is in accordance with the principle enunciated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—in other words, a general disqualification of chairmen and deputy-chairmen of certain adjudicating bodies. These include the Re-instatement Committees under the National Service Acts. The reason why this particular wording has been chosen is that there is a panel from which the chairmen and reserve chairmen are taken.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 41, at the end to insert, "The Performing Right Tribunal."
The Amendment is linked with the Amendment to the Third Schedule, in page 23, line 35, at the end to insert, The Performing Right Tribunal, and also with the Amendment to the Fourth Schedule, in page 34, line 36, at the end to insert:


4 &amp; 5 Eliz. 2. c. 74.
The Copyright Act,1956.
In section twenty-three, subsection (3).


I can explain all three together.
Members of the Performing Right Tribunal set up by the Copyright Act, 1956, are at present subject to a "reverse" disqualification under Section 23 (3) of that Act, which applies both to the House of Commons of Westminster and to the two Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland.
The purpose of the first Amendment is to add the Tribunal to the list of disqualifying offices in Part II of the First Schedule to the Bill. The second Amendment makes a corresponding addition to the Northern Ireland version of that Schedule set out in the Third Schedule to the Bill. The last Amendment provides for the addition to the Fourth Schedule of an entry covering the repeal of Section 23 (3) of the Copyright Act, 1956.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, leave out line 42.—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, at the end to insert:
Accountant appointed by the Secretary of State under section seventy-three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946.
This is another office which was not brought to the attention of the Select Committee and it is an important one. Under Section 74 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, any payment of an Exchequer grant to schools not maintained by an education authority are conditional upon the examination of their income and expenditure accounts. For this purpose, the Secretary of State for Scotland appoints an accountant under Section 73 of the Act.
At present, the accountant is a civil servant, but there is no reason why a

non-civil servant should not be appointed. The remuneration rises to £1,795. The accountant has to make an investigation and report before the payment of the Exchequer grant is made. It would seem to me to be obviously an office which ought not to be held by a Member of Parliament as it is an office from which grants from public funds are made.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Once again, as a Scottish Member who was also a member of the Select Committee on the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, I wish to support an Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend. I think that this Amendment is quite correct.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, at the end to insert "Advocates-Depute in Scotland."
I am afraid that we shall not deal with this Amendment quite as rapidly as we have been dealing with Amendments recently.

Mr. Pickthorn: Why?

Mr. Willis: Because we consider this to be a matter of some considerable importance in Scotland. The arguments for this Amendment are very much the same as those which were made against Members of the House having Crown briefs, and on an Amendment affecting those the Committee divided. Advocates-Depute in Scotland handle practically all the Crown briefs. In return an Advocate-Depute receives a salary of £850 per annum. The office of Advocates-Depute is quite definitely an office of profit under the Crown and, therefore, only by some special consideration could it not be an office disqualifying the holder from membership of the House of Commons.
That is not, however, the most important consideration. The Select Committee on the House of Commons Disqualification Bill pointed out:
In compiling this list Your Committee have recognised that certain offices are incompatible with membership of the House of Commons, some as involving physical impossibilities of simultaneous attendance in two places.…


All the evidence before the Select Committee showed that it is impossible for an Advocate-Depute to perform his duties in Scotland and at the same time to attend to his duties in the House of Commons. That has long been so.
I was interested in one of the replies given in evidence to the Select Committee by the Lord Advocate, who ventured to suggest that we might exclude the Advocates-Depute from this Schedule and, therefore, from disqualification, in view of the fact that we might possibly at some time have another Election result such as we had in 1931. I really did not think that that was a very good reason for excluding the Advocates-Depute.
I would draw the Committee's attention to evidence given to the Select Committee by Sir Marshall Millar Craig. He was asked—it is question and answer 1163—whether it would be regarded as objectionable if a Member of Parliament were appointed an Advocate-Depute, and he replied:
Yes, it would. The present Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General are very much against an Advocate-Depute being in Parliament.
At the following sitting of the Select Committee the Lord Advocate gave quite contrary evidence. I do not know what made the right hon. and learned Gentleman change his mind. I assume that Sir Marshall Millar Craig, having given that answer, was asked:
On principle?
His answer was categoric:
On principle. They cannot do justice to both offices.
There is no dubiety about that. The next question was:
For what sort of reason, that they have not the time or that the duties are incompatible in nature?
His answer was:
No, more a question of time. The duties of a Member of Parliament involve attendance all the time. His duties as an Advocate-Depute could possibly be discharged by sending papers from Edinburgh to London, but it is much better that the duties should be discharged in Edinburgh.
If Advocates-Depute were attending the House of Commons we should have to appoint Advocates-Depute depute to do their work for them in Scotland. That is the situation at which we should

arrive. They could not do their own work. That is the important factor in the situation, and it was borne out by the evidence given by the Lord Advocate himself, who answering a question—it is in question and answer 1235 in the Minutes of Evidence—said:
The real difficulty, as I see it, is perhaps not so much incompatibility but practical difficulty, and I am afraid that is a very serious difficulty. I have had the opportunity over the weekend of speaking only informally to two previous Lords Advocate and the Crown Agent who has got such a lot to do with criminal prosecutions, and we all do feel that there are practical difficulties.
There was a general consensus of opinion that a man could not do these two jobs at once, the two jobs of an Advocate-Depute and a Member of Parliament. The Lord Advocate went on:
Speaking for myself, in so far as I was to invite my colleagues to be Advocates-Depute, I think I would feel bound at this stage of Parliamentary procedure and business, and the business of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to say that he would not be an Advocate-Depute if he was also in the House.
That seems clear. Later the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could see no possibility of the work of Parliament House diminishing, but that it would be maintained.
I submit that the practical difficulties are such that they make it impossible for Advocates-Depute to be Members of the House of Commons, and that was one of the important considerations which the Select Committee was supposed to take into account.
The late Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill, whom I defeated at the polls in 1945, was Advocate-Depute until November, 1935, when he resigned that office. That was, I assume, when he became a Member of Parliament. Since then, during twenty years, the practice has grown up in Parliament House for Advocates-Depute to resign on nomination day. I think that is correct. On nomination day an Advocate-Depute standing as a Parliamentary candidate resigns from office.
Since that is the practice in Parliament House, since it has become the recognised practice without anybody's suggesting that it should be, since Advocates-Depute resign when they become Members of Parliament, because they think it advisable in their wisdom that they should not be Members of Parliament at the


same time, and since less and less frequently even before 1935 and the days of Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill have Advocates-Depute become Members of the House of Commons, I think we also in this Committee ought to accept the practice, which has grown up gradually, and which, I think, is rather desirable.
I agree with the view, brought out in evidence before the Select Committee in answer to questions by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—questions and answers 1175 to 1180—that the office of an Advocate-Depute is in many respects similar to that of standing counsel to a Government Department. That was the purport of the evidence. I thought that that was the purport of the questions. If it was not, the questions certainly brought out the fact that there was a similarity in these offices, and if it is wrong for a standing counsel to sit in the House it is equally wrong for an Advocate-Depute to sit here.
7.0 p.m.
I think that for all these perfectly good reasons we ought to consider this matter seriously. I do not want to go over again the arguments put forward in connection with Crown briefs, although some of them are applicable in this case. One of the arguments for allowing Advocates-Depute to sit in the House of Commons is that lawyers in the House are allowed to accept Crown briefs. I do not think that that argument is altogther good, because of the additional factors which I have mentioned.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made an excellent suggestion when he spoke about the need for a proper inquiry into the whole of this business. One aspect that ought to be considered is this question of the Law Officers, with particular reference to Advocates-Depute in Scotland. I hope, therefore, for all these reasons, that we shall have a favourable reply from the Government.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has made a strong case for his point of view. It is a fact that the four Advocates-Depute are paid £850 a year and are appointed by the Lord Advocate of the day. It may well be that personal friendship or political persuasion have

something to do with the appointment, but I am concerned with what is best for the conduct of business in Parliament, that is to say, for the national interest as a whole.
I approach this question from the point of view of whether we have in Scotland a sufficient number of hon. Members of legal experience. Earlier today discussion took place on whether there might not be too many English Members with legal experience, but I do not think that that can be said of Scottish Members. On the Government Front Bench, there are the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, but we have only to throw our minds back a very few years to recall the time when the Solicitor-General for Scotland had no seat in the House.

Mr. Willis: I am very interested in this point about the necessity for Scottish lawyers to be in the House. The curious thing is that while we have so few lawyers from Scotland in the House we have better legislation for Scotland than the English have for England. Surely that must be borne in mind.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I readily agree that when there is a Conservative Government in office we have better legislation for Scotland, but I must not deviate to discussing later Amendments relating to Lords-Advocate and Solicitors-General themselves.
I am concentrating my argument on the supply of hon. Members who are capable of filling those offices. While we have only two Scottish lawyers on the Government side just now, and both of them are sitting on the Front Bench, we have on the Opposition Front Bench only one Scottish lawyer. If the tables are turned and the Opposition happens to take charge of our affairs, there will be that same situation which we have found inconvenient in the past of having only one Law Officer of the Crown with a seat in the House. Therefore, it is of general interest, regardless of party, if we are to make membership of the House impossible for barristers in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: Why cannot they come into the House as other people do?

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Well, barristers are barristers, and the fact is that it is quite possible for English barristers


to carry out their legal duties and their House of Commons duties without impairing either, but in Scotland it is financially more difficult.

Mr. Willis: Hon. Members come from Scotland to the House of Commons, frequently at very great financial sacrifice, for that same reason that they cannot carry out their work in Scotland and perform their duties in the House at the same time. They accept that, because they are proud and privileged to sit in the House and perform what they consider to be work of great benefit to the people of Scotland whom they represent. Why cannot barristers do the same?

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I am not here to speak for barristers, but my anxiety is that a sufficient number of them should come to the House to carry out work required on the Front Bench representing Scotland. We have only three such legal gentlemen in the House, and if the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland were to fall ill, which I hope will not happen, there would be nobody to appoint in the place of either. Were an election to take place and the Opposition became the Government, and the only right hon. and learned Member for Scotland on the Front Bench opposite were defeated, there would be no one in the House who could be appointed to the office of Lord Advocate. I hope that we shall hesitate before we make an alteration which will debar potential Lords Advocate from standing for membership of the House and being elected. As a Conservative, I base my argument on what has been found satisfactory in the past.

Mr. Willis: They have resigned in the past.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member is aware of the case of Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill, because he himself defeated him in 1945. Not only was he an Advocate-Depute and a Member of Parliament but, previously to that, I think that Mr. Guy was also both, and so was Mr. Wellwood Johnson. If we go back further than that, and I agree that it is a long time back to 1910, a very distinguished gentleman, Lord Alness was a Lord Advocate and a Member of Parliament, and so also was a Mr. Alexander.
I have never heard it suggested that the conduct of the Scottish business of the House was anything but improved by having those Members here, combining the two jobs. It is for that reason that I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment too readily. We should consider very carefully whether it is really in the public interest to have the Bill amended in this way.

Mr. Mitchison: I hesitate to intervene on what is a Scottish matter, but the Select Committee had to consider this. I will not try to cope with the difficulties of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) in not having sufficient lawyers in the House. The question is whether any deficiencies in that respect ought to be filled by sending certain people who hold this office of Advocate-Depute to London. The Attorney-General, speaking about English law and practice, put in a memorandum, in page 82 of the Select Committee's Report. He stated the position in relation to standing counsel in England. He mentioned the senior counsel for the Treasury at the Central Criminal Court as one of them. I think another was the prosecuting counsel to the Post Office, in North Wales. He made it clear that it was the English practice, in the past, not to have gentlemen holding both that office and a position as a Member of Parliament, and, of course, standing counsel are expressly precluded by this same Bill.
The question is whether there is any real difference between the position of these advocates in Scotland and that of the type of appointment to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General referred. I can summarise the evidence given before the Select Committee in this way. The very distinguished civil servant speaking on behalf of the Scottish Office told us that Advocates-Depute were paid by a fixed salary; in that respect being less individual, if I may so put it, than standing counsel in England; and that they only received fees in some appeal cases.
That did not appear in his evidence, but it was added in a subsequent note at the foot of the second column of the evidence in page 146. If I remember rightly, they were wholly engaged in this business, they were the only people so engaged, and on one point, an important


one, both he and the Lord Advocate completely agreed. That seems to me to dispose of the matter.
At Question 1165, in page 145, the Civil Service witness was asked why these Advocates-Depute had not the time, or whether the duties were incompatible in nature. The answer was:
No, more a question of time. The duties of a Member of Parliament involve attendance all the time. His duties as an Advocate-Depute could possibly be discharged by sending papers from Edinburgh to London, but it is much better that the duties should he discharged in Edinburgh.
He went on to say that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General would not appoint an Advocate-Depute as a Member of Parliament now. When the Lord Advocate came to give evidence, he was equally emphatic on the ground of physical incompatibility and in a rather long answer to Question 1235, in page 150, he said:
Speaking for myself, in so far as I was to invite my colleagues to be Advocates-Depute. I think I would feel hound at this stage of Parliamentary procedure and business, and the business of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to say that he could not be an Advocate-Depute if he was also in the House. But that is not on incompatibility; that is purely on the physical difficulty of carrying out both occupations.
I am content to leave philosophical questions of incompatibility in Scotland to be decided by Scots. On such thorny ground I would be the last person to intervene, but it is clear that in practice, on physical grounds, if these gentlemen were elected to Parliament, they would be required to be in two places at once if they were to discharge the duties of their post in Edinburgh and their membership here efficiently.
How it can be said that it is in the public interest to have people in Parliament who are bound to discharge one set of duties inefficiently because they are in Parliament and because they are Advocates-Depute, I fail to understand. I should have thought that the only possible argument about these gentlemen might have been, "It is so obviously an incompatible office that they would never be appointed if they were Members of Parliament. They would be compelled to resign, and, therefore, we need not put it in the Bill." After all, they are very close to standing counsel and standing counsel have been put in the Bill. Why should not these people be put in?
When we look at the history of the matter we find that up to 1935—true, twenty-two years ago when, no doubt, Parliamentary business was a little less pressing than it is nowadays—there actually was someone who managed to fulfil, or purported to fulfil, both offices. Perhaps we have advanced a little since then. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian will not take it amiss—I have a great personal esteem for him—when I say that I regarded his speech as an argument for putting these people in the Bill. If it can be argued that this is the way to meet any lack of Scottish lawyers in the House, then it ought to be made clear that it is not the way to do it.
7.15 p.m.
With respect, it is nonsense for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to appear before the Select Committee and say that it is not possible to do both these jobs, and then to refuse to accept that incompatibility when it is embodied in an Amendment. I hope that the case of my hon. Friend will be met, and the Amendment accepted. It would be a great pity if we had an unnecessary difference with Scotland by including standing counsel in England and leaving out Advocates-Depute.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If an Englishman may follow an Englishman in this debate, may I say that I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment, at all events for the reason just given by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He said that Advocates-Depute are very close to standing counsel, but the reason standing counsel are excluded is that they are advising on matters which are themselves incompatible with Membership of this House. The objection put forward to membership of Advocates-Depute is simply the physical one that they cannot both be here and in Edinburgh at the same time, and no one has seriously argued that their functions are in any way incompatible with membership of this House except on that purely physical ground.
I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has been fully quoted in this connection. Earlier, in Question 1235, to which the hon. Member referred, there are these words:
In the first place, speaking for myself—and I hope I have some support in the Committee


on this point—I should like to see as few obstructions put in the way of my colleagues coming to this House as possible. We are very anxious to come here; we are a very small Bar; and the fewer people who could be discouraged the better.
It is true that at present it would probably be impossible and undesirable that any of these functionaries, to use a general word, should become Members of Parliament or, conversely, that any Member of Parliament should be appointed an Advocate-Depute. Yet circumstances may change, and it may be that in the not distant future the physical difficulty would no longer subsist. In any event, I hope that the Committee will not put into the Schedule any cases which rest solely on physical difficulty. We are here dealing with incompatibility in a more general sense of the word; incompatibility of function for a number of reasons, many of which have been referred to on the other Amendments which we have been discussing this afternoon.
There are, of course, many people who cannot he Members of Parliament on physical grounds. They are by no means necessarily offices under the Crown or offices of profit, but we do not disqualify them, because the right way to deal with those people, is either that their constituents should not elect them or, alternatively, that they should not continue to be employed by those who employ them. That is dealt with outside this Bill. I am sure that I shall have the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) with me when I say that this Bill is not concerned with dealing with that class of case. I believe that this is within that class.

Mr. Mitchison: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is saying this, "We are agreed that they cannot do both jobs now, but they may be able at some time in the future to do them." Is not that what Clause 5 (1, c) is for? That if their functions change and it so happens that there is no more crime in Scotland and they are never occupied in Edinburgh and can perfectly well come here, they can be dealt with under that Clause.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not saying for a moment that they cannot be dealt with under that Clause. Clause 5 (1, c) is not just to be brought in casually.

Obviously it will deal with cases on a more or less permanent basis. We are not going to change this Schedule every year. The argument I am putting forward is that we ought not to put into the Schedule at all cases that depend merely on physical difficulties. They ought to be dealt with outside the Bill, in accordance with the principles which have been very clearly stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
We want as little disqualification as we need put into the Bill. This is unnecessary in principle. It will be taken care of quite well by the ordinary processes outside the Bill. For these reasons. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I should like to say a word in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) because, despite what the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has just said, this is a matter of considerable importance and a lot of humbug is talked about it. If an Advocate-Depute is nominated for a Parliamentary seat and a by-election should take place, the Advocate-Depute tenders his resignation from that position. I think that I am right—the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong—in saying that the present Solicitor-General for Scotland was in that position. Having been rejected at the polls, he was immediately reappointed Advocate-Depute. Surely that is a little piece of humbug we ought to get rid of. That is one of the reasons why people at court look a little bit impolitely on those who hold legal offices under a political Government.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a piece of humbug that we want to get rid of. If we put this Amendment in the Bill it is exactly that which will continue.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member does not seem to understand. If we put it in the Bill, it would prevent that from happening. Another thing is that this particular appointment, as has been said, not only carries certain fees but a salary of £850.
In addition to the questions which the Lord Advocate answered and which have


been quoted in the Committee this afternoon, there was a further suggestion that he had to make, which was, I think, the worst suggestion of all. If hon. Members will look at page 150, Question 1236, they will see that the Question was:
In the days—not that we may ever see a large majority again on either side—of 1931, when there was an extremely large majority, it was perfectly practicable for a person to do the two jobs, was it not, and it might be so again?
The Lord Advocate, in reply, said:
That is why I was going to venture to suggest to this Committee that it might feel disposed to exempt Advocates-Depute from disqualification, leaving it to the Lord Advocate, in selecting his Deputes to decide whether at that particular stage it was practicable to have a Depute who was a Member of the House.
I believe that that is a suggestion which the Committee would not care to tolerate for one moment. It would be saying that after these Advocates-Depute were appointed the Lord Advocate himself would claim the sole right to decide which one, if any of them, should come to the House of Commons.
I think that was very wrong indeed. The case which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East made out this afternoon, and as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, South, who opposed it from the benches opposite, said, was both a strong and logical one. I shall certainly await with interest the reply of the Lord Advocate, to hear how he will defend these particular appointments and their exclusion from a Bill of this kind.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): Before I come entirely to the merits of the Amendment that has been moved, may I correct at least one misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). He said that the Advocates-Depute had all the Crown briefs.

Mr. Willis: I said almost all.

The Lord Advocate: They do not have the civil Crown briefs at all, or practically none. I just want to clear that matter up.
I should also like to clear up the question about the practice as regards resigning. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was perfectly correct when he said that was and had been recently the practice, and the reason why that practice

grew up was because there was thought to be some doubt. It was a precautionary measure in case anybody should be caught out as having infringed the rules in regard to standing for Parliament, and as all hon. Members of the Committee know, these rules were extremely complicated and very difficult to understand. That is one of the reasons why we are here today, to try to make what was practically unintelligible intelligible. I can advise the Committee as a question of law that in point of fact the Advocates-Depute were not disqualified from the House in view of their terms of office, and examples of that have already been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray).
We have naturally given this Amendment the most anxious consideration, because the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East in moving the Amendment were certainly logical and forceful; but I must invite the Committee to reject the Amendment on the ground that no good reason has been shown why a practice which has existed for hundreds of years should be departed from.
So far as anything that has been said today, no abuse, no difficulty has arisen at the time when Advocates-Depute have been in the House. I agree full well that in recent years they have not been in the House, except my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is technically an Advocate-Depute himself. I feel certain that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East would not have put down this Amendment if he had realised that he was at the same time excluding my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Willis: I have another Amendment about that.

The Lord Advocate: I do not want to anticipate the polite courtesies which are, no doubt, going to be levelled at us later. I point out that the Committee would be excluding the Solicitor-General as well as the other Advocates-Depute. The Committee will realise that for many years there has been no criticism either of the non-attendance in this House or of any incompatibility with these particular offices being in the House. Secondly, the Committee will appreciate that two Select


Committees have recommended that these particular people should not be disqualified.
The Herbert Committee in 1941, and again the Committee presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), after full consideration, which has been referred to in the Committee today, decided that Advocates-Depute should not be disqualified. I have great sympathy with the remarks which were made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian on a question which was also touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) at an earlier stage, when he said how necessary it was and how desirable it was that members of the legal profession, particularly barristers and advocates, should be in this House.
7.30 p.m.
I have most uncomfortable recollections of the three years when I was a member of the Government but not a Member of this House. Speaking personally, I can say that it made a tremendous difference to me, and made the carrying out of my duties infinitely more easy—and I hope more helpful to hon. Members—when I became a Member of this House and was no longer on the "touch-line".

Mr. A. Woodburn: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain whether, if an Advocate-Depute became a Member of this House, it would entail the appointment of another Advocate-Depute to do the necessary work in Edinburgh; or if another Advocate-Depute were not appointed, would it not mean that the position of Advocate-Depute would become a sinecure?

The Lord Advocate: I was coming to the question of practicability in a moment.

Mr. Mitchison: Before dealing with that, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten me on a matter of Scots law? In the Second Schedule I notice that the Ministerial office of Solicitor-General for Scotland is listed. Am I to understand that it is Scots law that though the Solicitor-General for Scotland appears in that Schedule, he

would be disqualified from sitting here because he is also an Advocate-Depute?

The Lord Advocate: The Solicitor-General for Scotland has to this extent a double existence in that in order to be entitled to prosecute he has to be an Advocate-Depute. It is a special commission given to him by the Lord Advocate in Scotland in the same way as a commission is given to the other Advocates-Depute.
I come now to the rather special Scottish position which has been referred to. Members of the Scottish Bar, naturally, find it extremely difficult, almost impossible, to be hon. Members of the House and at the same time carry on any professional practice whatever in Edinburgh. Their position is far more difficult than that of English banisters who are at least able to carry on some part of their professional work. An Advocate-Depute, like a doctor, is an individual. In other words, his personal presence is required when any business is being conducted. It is an entirely different matter in the case of a person who is able to have a business interest, and may carry on his business although he is not present.
As it was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, the question is does this House want to have Members who are Advocates-Depute. With all modesty, I suggest that it is a good thing that a reasonable number of the members of our profession should be Members of this House, and the type of person who might well become a Member of Parliament is an Advocate-Depute. I still believe and will repeat what I said to the Select Committee, that at the present time it is not practical politics for any of the Advocates-Depute to carry on their duties and also be Members of this House. But that does not mean that it will always be impossible for them to become Members of this House.
Today we are legislating for the future, although, admittedly, with a saving Clause in the Bill regarding alterations. I invite the Committee not, here and now, to exclude Advocates-Depute. They have never been excluded before. Two Select Committees, after giving anxious consideration to the matter, have suggested that they should be allowed to sit as Members of this House, and no


case, except the difficulty of travel, has been advanced to show why they should be excluded.

Mr. William Ross: The Lord Advocate admits that today there are debarring circumstances, but he added that that will not always be so. What are the present circumstances which are likely to change?

The Lord Advocate: It might be perfectly possible so to adjust the duties of the Advocate-Depute in the Crown Office that one of them was relieved to a certain extent of, perhaps, his routine work. That type of thing might be possible.

Mr. Mitchison: Surely, we should not legislate even for a semi-sinecure.

The Lord Advocate: I am not suggesting for a moment that if such an alteration was made, the Advocate-Depute concerned would continue to draw his full salary. It might be that his duties in the Crown Office would be reduced, and if that happened, his salary would also be reduced. I am asking the Committee not, here and now, to say that Advocates-Depute, who have not been debarred at any time in the past, should now be debarred from becoming Members of this House. I do so on the ground that no good case has been made out to show that should be done, and I invite the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I am disappointed with the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When I moved this Amendment I tried to be polite to the legal profession. I am not usually so polite, but I tried to be on this occasion, because I did not want to engender a great deal of heat. I wanted the matter considered on its merits, and I still want that. But let me make again the point which I made when I intervened during the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray).
Is our work in this House of Commons so very badly done because we have not a great number of Scottish lawyers as Members of the House? Is it not true that we have had better legislation on a number of subjects for Scotland than for England? And why is that? It is because, although we may not have the advantage of the legal ability of certain

people, at least hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have a certain amount of human experience, which is of equal value with the professional experience of lawyers when we come to do Committee work.
I have always looked upon lawyers as a powerful pressure group. The English lawyers in this House are certainly a powerful pressure group but, fortunately, the pressure group is not so powerful so far as Scotland is concerned. Therefore, I discount much of this argument because my experience in this House—it is comparatively short, only eight years—does not lead me to believe that there is a great necessity for a number of lawyers to be hon. Members. I admit that it would be pleasant and helpful to have them. They might advise us on the wording of Amendments and on legal points. But we still obtain that sort of assistance, although we have not such people as Members of Parliament.
The Lord Advocate said that there had not previously been any disqualification. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he admitted in his evidence before the Select Committee, recognises that the position is changing very considerably from what it previously was. During his evidence to the Committee he was asked—it is Question 1238:
It there any increase in the duties and responsibilities of Advocates-Depute nowadays that makes you feel the-re is at least this practical difficulty?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered:
No. I think I would be rather inclined to suggest, although I have not had experience of it at that time, that the pressure on one's time here is probably greater than it was at that time.
That is in the House. He continued:
There may be a slight increase in the work in the Crown Office, but not such a marked increase as I think probably there is in the necessity of being in this House.
In other words, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in that answer, replied to his own argument. The position is changing, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that we can get over this difficulty if we shuffle the work round in Parliament House so that someone would not have anything to do and could attend this House of Commons.
What a preposterous suggestion, that a lawyer has to be bribed with £850 to come to this House. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. I do not think he meant it, but that is the implication of what he said. The members of his profession are so public-spirited that they will not sacrifice to come here, but want a bribe of £850.
That is quite wrong. Either they are doing this job or they are not doing it. If they are doing it, they cannot attend the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that. All his evidence indicated that, and so did the advice which he appeared to receive

from previous Lord Advocates before he gave that evidence. Why does he not admit it now and say that it is impossible to do these two things?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about the position of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. If he accepted the Amendment, or the spirit of it, he could easily put that right. I am very disappointed about this matter, in which a very important principle is at stake and I trust that my hon. Friends will support me in the Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 119, Noes 178.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Albu, A. H.
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Redhead, E. C.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hoy, J. H.
Reeves, J.


Benson, G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Beswick, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Royle, C.


Boyd, T. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Short, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Sorensen, R. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Champion, A J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sparks, J. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Steele, T.


Clunie, J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lawson, C. M.
Sylvester, G. O.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacColl, J. E.
Thornton, E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGovern, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacDermot, Niall
Viant, S. P.


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Watkins, T. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmch)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Dye, S.
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Moody, A. S.
Wigg, George


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Eric
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Moss, R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Owen, W. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hamilton, W. W.
Padley, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hannan, W.
Parker, J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hastings, S.
Parkin, B. T.



Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, N.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Holmes.


Harbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barber, Anthony
Body, R. F.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Barlow, Sir John
Bossom, Sir Alfred


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Braine, B. R.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. I


Ashton, H.
Bidgood, J. C.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Baldwin, A. E.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Brooman-White, R. c.


Balniel, Lord
Bishop, F. P.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)




Bryan, P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Channon, Sir Henry
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pilkington, Capt, R. A.


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howard, John (Test)
Pitman, I. J.


Cole, Norman
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pott, H. P.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Powell, J. Enoch


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, J. E.


Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rawlinson, Peter


Crouch, R. F.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Redmayne, M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cunningham, Knox
Joseph, Sir Keith
Renton, D. L. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Rippon, A. G. F.


Dance, J. C. G.
Keegan, D.
Robertson, Sir David


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Roper, Sir Harold


Davies, Rt.Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Kerr, H. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, M.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Deedes, w. F.
Kirk, P. M,
Sharples, R. C.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, William


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leavey, J. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Duncan, Capt. J. A, L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Speir, R. M.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Fell, A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife, E.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, S.


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Temple, John M.


Godber, J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Marlowe, A, A. H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mathew, R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Green, A.
Maude, Angus
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, R. L.
Wade, D. W.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gurden, Harold
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wall, Major Patriok


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th &amp; Chr'ch)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Woollam, John Victor


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)



Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
TELLERS FOB THE NOES o


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Osborne, C.
Mr. Legh and


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Page, R. G.
Colonel J. H. Harrison


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Partridge, E.

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 27 and 28.
This Amendment seeks to leave out the words:
Agent in the United Kingdom of the government of any country or territory ouside the United Kingdom.
It is clear from the report of the Select Committee that it was seeking to deal with offices analogous to that of the Ulster agent, but in point of fact this has gone beyond that and the words used in the Bill would lead to the disqualification of such people as a solicitor or a commercial agent of a foreign Government or a Commonwealth Government. In those circumstances, it is thought right to make this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, leave out line 31.—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in line 38, at the end to insert:
Chairman or Deputy Chairman of an Administrative Board constituted for the purposes of any scheme made under the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951 or the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Acts, 1951 and 1954.
The Amendment follows on the principle we discussed earlier in relation to chairmen and deputy chairmen of certain tribunals.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 38, at end insert:
Chairman or acting Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in line 39, after "Chairman", to insert "or Reserve Chairman".
Perhaps, Sir Charles, we could discuss, at the same time, the proposed Amendment to the Third Schedule, in page 24, line 29, after "Chairman", to insert "or Reserve Chairman".

The Chairman: If you please.

Mr. Simon: This Amendment is in accordance with the principle suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General earlier, which found general acceptance in the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 41, leave out from beginning to "the" and insert "or".—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 14, line 2, at the end to insert:
Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Local Tribunal or Local Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, 1946, the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946.
We discussed this Amendment when we discussed the question of chairmen of tribunals.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 2, at end insert:
Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a Local Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the National Service Act, 1948, relating to conscientious objectors.

In line 2, at end insert:
Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Military Service (Hardship) Committee constituted under the Third Schedule to the National Service Act, 1948.—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, at the end to insert:
Chairman of the Technical Personnel Committee appointed by the Minister of Labour.
The purpose of this Amendment is to disqualify the Chairman of the Ministry of Labour Technical Personnel Committee, another post which was not considered by the Select Committee. This is a standing advisory committee, composed partly of Departmental representatives and partly of persons outside Government service. Its function is to make recommendations on short-term

questions relating to the demand for and supply of scientific manpower. The Committee is not responsible for the actual recruitment of technical manpower. Under these circumstances, in accordance with the suggestions of the Attorney-General, the Chairman ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out lines 28 and 29.
The Amendment concerns the position held by counsel to the Secretary of State under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936. It is not my intention, or that of my hon. Friends, to go into the troubles we have had in this House on previous occasions. I think that the Committee knows that we have considered an appointment a rather despicable one and the treatment of junior counsel as shocking. That is not included in this Amendment, but what is included is the piece of political patronage which has taken place under the guidance of the Lord Advocate.
We have to consider whether the person who has received that appointment is fit to be included in this Bill. I suggest that he is not, because a letter I received from the predecessor of the present Secretary of State said that it was desirable that the senior counsel, whose position the Bill covers, should be someone of standing and experience, who if possible should not be engaged in private practice.
I am sure that in England it would be regarded as an oddity of the most curious kind if we had a person of legal standing without a private practice. How he becomes of any standing at all I do not know. To suggest that this person should fill this important post is, I think, belittling the whole situation. The present incumbent is the one for whom Scotland has had some respect. To appoint his designated appointee, as he is called, in his place is something which Scotland dislikes intensely. If he is of such a weak character we believe that we should not clutter up this Bill unnecessarily. We think it is wrong to put this in merely because it was in some previous Bill.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The effect of this Amendment would be that the two counsel to the Secretary of State on Private Legislation Procedure would no longer be


disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. The hon. Member has argued the Amendment on a point of particular personalities and particular individuals, but I would remind the Committee of what was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He said that we are not legislating for persons here; we are legislating for the law of the land, which has to be applied to a very large number of persons. I noted what the right hon. Member had to say at an earlier stage and that remains true. What the House has to consider is whether this job is compatible with membership of the House.
Counsel are not expected to take an active part in political work. In view of the nature of their duties, it is clearly desirable that they should not do so. Surely it is essential that they should not be Members of the House of Commons, because if they were, and they were advising Parliamentary commissioners in the course of private legislation procedure, there might well arise just the sort of conflict of duties which makes it essential to diqualify this kind of office from membership of the House of Commons.

Mr. Hoy: I will not comment at length on what the Under-Secretary has said, but content myself with saying that we shall probably have a change of Government soon and that the security of tenure of this particular individual will be even less than that which the Government are prepared to give to tenants under the new Rent Bill. Under those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.0 p.m.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 14, line 32, at the end, to insert:
Director of the British Sugar Corporation Limited appointed by the Ministers as defined by section seventeen of the Sugar Act, 1956.
This Amendment shows why the machinery to deal with this matter must be flexible. While the Select Committee was sitting the House was passing the Sugar Act, 1956, which provides that three directors of the British Sugar Corporation Limited—the Chairman and two ordinary directors—should be appointed by the Government and that those directors should have absolute control over all question of policy. In those circum-

stances, it is obvious that Government directors of this Corporation ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 15, line 42, at the end, to insert:
Lord Advocate for Scotland.

The Chairman: The Committee might discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in page 17, line 15, at the end, to insert:
Solicitor-General for Scotland.
There are also two consequential Amendments on page 793: in Schedule 2, page 19, to leave out line 30; and in Schedule 2, page 19, to leave out line 32.

Mr. Willis: When this Amendment appeared on the Order Paper hon Members thought it was another Scottish night out. They thought that Scottish Members were having a little fun again. Hon. Members may treat this in a rather ironical or humorous vein, but it affects a problem about which a great many people in Scotland are seriously concerned. We have seen these two offices of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland degenerate into little more than stepping stones to the Bench. The Lord Advocate's office was once almost the greatest office in Scotland. Let us see what it has become today. I say this without any personal reference at all because, as I pointed out in the debate on the first Bill, this applies to all parties. It is not a party matter, nor is it a personal matter. As I say, we have seen these great offices degenerate into mere stepping stones to the Bench.
What happens in Scotland at present for the ambitious boy called to the Bar? At a very early age, he commences to weigh up political prospects and to ask himself which party is likely to be in power. Having done that, he backs a certain horse. He then becomes engaged violently in politics and tries to get the necessary publicity to attract the attention to himself which will secure a seat for him. Having obtained that seat, because few Scottish lawyers come to the House—only those who can expect preferment—he usually becomes Solicitor-General for Scotland or Lord Advocate. The first vacancy which occurs on the Bench, he disappears to the Bench.


Earlier today we were told about the desirability of having lawyers in the House, but the fact is that they do not want to stay here. When they get here they soon move on to the Bench.
The present situation is bad politically and judicially. It means that a man becomes prominently associated with a political party and takes part in vigorous conflicts. I have had vigorous conflicts with some of the occupants of these positions. Then, when he becomes a judge, everybody still thinks of him in terms of his political affiliations.

Sir P. Spens: No.

Mr. Willis: I do not want to mention names in the debate, but I could mention members of the Bench who, even today, are thought of in terms of their political affiliations when they were Members of the House. Surely it cannot be a good thing judicially for people to look upon a judge as being the great Tory or the Labour Member. That is the position today.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Would the hon. Member altogether debar Scottish lawyers who come into the House from ever becoming members of the Bench?

Mr. Willis: We do not want to do that, but we want to attract attention to this problem. It is bad for the legal profession and for the judiciary. Equally, it is bad politically, because people say, "Politics are a game. He is only waiting to go to the Bench." It brings politics into contempt and, goodness knows, we do not want to do that. It also brings the Bench and the legal profession into contempt and creates a situation which is bad from the point of view of the judges.
I would say that Parliament House in Edinburgh is the keenest and most active political club in the city. I understand that the Lord Advocate says that is nonsense. I would submit to him that politics are discussed more vigorously and party chances weighed up more acutely in Parliament House, Edinburgh, than in any other place in the city. Surely it is not a good thing for the judiciary and Parliament House to be in that position.
I do not know the answer to this problem. It is a serious problem which creates undesirable conditions and it arises because we have such a small Bar.

There is not the same problem in England. How can we avoid it? I do not know the answer. We ought to consider whether our legal officers could not operate from the civil servants' box equally well as from the Front Bench. One of my hon. Friends says they could not do any worse. In any event, that is what is done in local authorities.

Mr. Ross: We should miss a lot of fun.

Mr. Willis: We should miss some fun at times, but looking at the practice of the House, the Scottish Grand Committee and other Committees where the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate function, I am not sure that the information they give us could not equally be provided through the Secretary of State or one of the Joint Under-Secretaries who had obtained it from an adviser in the box. We might avoid some confusion. An interesting point is that if advice is tendered to us legally from the Solicitor-General for Scotland we usually find ourselves in confusion. We do not find that the legal points have been cleared up at all. As far as I can remember, the only concession we have obtained on the Rent Bill was a promise to look into the question of "shall" and "may" because different Departments had not decided what was the correct interpretation of "shall" and "may." We could have got into that confusion and obtained that promise without the Solicitor-General for Scotland sitting on the Front Bench in the Committee.
I think anybody who lives in Edinburgh or any people interested in these matters will agree that this is a problem which ought to be seriously considered. I say that in all sincerity. Once again we come back to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that a special committee should seriously go into all the problems concerning Members of the House. This is a problem which requires such attention. If we could solve it, we should do something beneficial both from the point of view of our judiciary and from the point of view of our political system, to both of which, in my view, it is important that the problem should be solved.

Sir P. Spens: This Amendment was not considered by the Select Committee.


It was never suggested to us, and it has now come before this Committee for the first time.

Mr. Willis: It did not come before the Select Committee, but I did make a speech on it on the Second Reading of the previous Bill, and also put down an Amendment to the previous Bill in the same terms.

Sir P. Spens: All I say is that the Select Committee did not have it to consider.
I think that I am the only lawyer in the House who can talk without having any interest, direct or indirect, in the fate of the Amendment. All the rest of my hon. and learned Friends may conceivably in time become members of the Bench. My time on the Bench is over, but I do want to say this to the Committee. I believe very sincerely that the Bench is very much enriched by members who have had experience in this House. No Bench composed entirely of lawyers, however good, who have never had any experience in this House or in public political life is as good as one which has a modicum of those with that experience.
I am speaking now from quite a lot of experience. I am quite certain that those who have been through the whole gamut of public life, who have had to stand on public platforms, and have had to study all the personal complaints and so forth that come to the attention of hon. Members, make very much better judges—or as good judges, and certainly very valuable judges—than do those who have spent all their time merely practising in the law.
Although I am a Scotsman, I am an English lawyer, and I am quite certain that it is desirable that a modicum of Members here should find their way to the Bench in Edinburgh. The only way such men can find their way to that Bench is by coming to this House. Therefore, the very last thing I would support would be any Amendment whatsoever which would disqualify any Scottish lawyer from finding his way here.
The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland are the successors to a very long line of very distinguished men who have greatly enriched the law of our native land, and I would be the very last to suggest that the line should not be continued indefinitely. I hope

that the House will have nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I begin by agreeing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) in his very general point, and by disagreeing with him in its particular application. What he seemed to be saying was that a member of the Bench is improved and enriched through experience of this House——

Sir P. Spens: I do not put it quite like that. I say that a Bench is enriched by having members who have been in this House.

Mr. MacPherson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct; he did say that, and I quoted his words wrongly. My complaint is that, although that is true, it is equally true that a Bench would be enriched by having some members who had spent some time in the Services, or had spent some time in active business, or some time even in the Civil Service or in other spheres of administration. A Bench would always be enriched by having some members who had not spent all of their time in legal practice but had undertaken, preferably in responsible positions other kinds of activities. Therefore, I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can thereby claim that this House should, in any degree at all, go out of its way to make special provision for future, or possible future, members of the Bench having experience in this House.
8.15 p.m.
The question to which the Amendments relate seems to me one which is quite entirely by itself in our public life. This is the situation in Scotland. We appoint to the Bench by political experience rather than by legal merit. That is not seriously denied by lawyers, by people who have had experience of that sort of appointment, or by people who have watched it in action. It is commonly accepted. It is known, and is taken as part of the life of Scotland. It is a sort of circumstance which used to exist in this country in many spheres a century or two ago.
One of the difficulties under which my hon. Friend and others who are interested in this matter suffer, is the great


difficulty of getting serious public attention focussed on this as a question of a special nature, and not simply as some odd complaint that Scottish Members now and again try to drag on to the Floor of the House of Commons. In England, so far as I know, there is only one appointment to the Bench which is made politically, and that is the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) a few years ago, when he was Attorney-General, making the claim, which no one disputed, or would, I think, dispute, that appointments to judicial office in England were now entirely non-political——

Sir P. Spens: May I remind the hon. Member that the present Lord Chief Justice has never been a Member of this House, and was appointed by a Labour Lord Chancellor?

Mr. MacPherson: I will not disagree with that. What I was about to point out was that—as I think it will be generally agreed—there is no other appointment to the English judicial offices which is made on political grounds. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got in before me, because I was about to add that, as far as I understand, there has been some consideration as to what the position of the Lord Chief Justice should be in regard to this kind of appointment. That appointment has not always been made on political grounds, and has not always been regarded as a sort of prescriptive right of the Attorney-General.
In Scotland, we have a completely different situation. There, the whole set of appointments is made politically, and members of their own profession regard the holders of the two Law Officerships of the Crown for Scotland as on their way to judicial office. The public also so regards it.
For myself, I am not very strongly concerned with the suggestion that the Lord Advocate should not be a Member of this House. I think that there ought to be one Scottish Law Officer—given, that is to say, the rest of our political circumstances. I do not dissent from my hon. Friend's point that the Scottish Law Officers might well be outside rather than inside the House but, accepting the

present circumstances, it seems to me that one Scottish Law Officer in the House is justified.
The existence of two of them appears to have a great number of disadvantages. For one thing, it means a dual carriageway to the Bench, and that might well be cut down to a single carriageway. If that avenue to the Bench is to exist, let us reduce it to one path. Apart from that, the thing is completely disproportionate. There are 5 million people in Scotland and 45 million in England and Wales. The 45 million get along with two Law Officers; the 5 million, apparently, also need two. There are 71 hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies; apparently they must be served by as many Law Officers as are all the rest of the Members of the House.
That stems to be essentially a matter for serious consideration by the House itself. One cannot quote authorities here, because one would be referring to people to whom one has talked in confidence, but there is not Scottish work enough for two Scottish Law Officers in the House in normal circumstances, although I have no doubt that it is convenient to have two people sharing what work there is.
I should like to add one further point in connection with this general subject of representation here—and particularly privileged and Front Bench representation —of the legal profession. One hon. Member opposite complained a little while ago about the shortage of the representation of the legal profession in this House, and he urged that as a reason for strengthening the number of advocates here. In fact, there are no Scottish solicitors here. The solicitors' profession in Scotland is much larger than the Bar. It also contains a far greater range of ability.
One of the things that the Bar in Scotland does is, by putting up a very large financial bar, to exclude much potential competition, whereas that does not apply to solicitors. That sort of argument is perhaps part of the background of these Amendments, and it seems to me that when we consider the background we should remember that not all lawyers are barristers or advocates. A great many—indeed, the majority, including many of the very best—belong to the so-called junior branch of the profession.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The curious thing about this Amendment is that it has been moved and supported on the basis, not of whether we need the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General in the House, but of what happens to them after they leave the House.

Mr. Willis: No, why they are here.

Mr. Macpherson: It has been alleged that they come here and use this place as a stepping stone. Of the 15 Scottish judges at the present time, five are former Law Officers and one of those was appointed to the bench by the party opposite.
I suggest that the questions we have to ask ourselves are simply these: are the Law Officers needed in the House of Commons, or are they not; and is there any reason why the Law Officers of England should be needed and should sit, and the Law Officers of Scotland should not? It has been said that we could get along quite well by getting advice from the official Box. We have our official advisers. Every Government have their official advisers, and we are very well served by them, but surely nobody seriously thinks that it would be better to have the case presented at second hand rather than at first hand. We have the Law Officers of the Crown here to present the case at first hand. We have had them here ever since Scotland was represented in this Parliament, and I suggest that we should continue to have them.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us for how many years, since the end of the war we have been without a Solicitor-General, or for how long a Solicitor-General has been appointed and has not had a seat in this House?

Mr. Macpherson: That situation arises from time to time. Circumstances have arisen when there has not been a qualified person who is also a Member of the House. I would point out that when that situation has arisen, hon. Members opposite have constantly asked when the Solicitor-General would find a place in the House.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman's reply is most disappointing, and it proves what I have already said, that the seriousness of the position does not seem to be appreciated by the Government.
I ask the Government seriously to consider what has been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) This matter causes serious concern in the profession, and certainly in Edinburgh, as I know from my own experience. The Government should address their minds to the problem which my hon. Friend and I have posed, instead of administering this little "brush-off".

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the important point which was made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) when he pointed out that two Law Officers are required by England with a population of 45 million and that two Law Officers are apparently required also by Scotland, with a population of only 5 million?

Mr. Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out line 45.
May we discuss with this the Amendments in page 16, line 40, and page 17, leave out line 8? They appear to go together, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Simon: These are drafting Amendments, designed to secure a more comprehensive disqualification of Supreme Court officers.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 16, line 35, at the end to insert:
Officer or servant of the Crown Estate Commissioners.
It has been brought to my attention that while we disqualify the Crown Estates Commissioners, and the bulk of their officers and servants are disqualified as being civil servants, there are, in fact, a few who are civilians and who are not disqualified. Therefore, it seems wrong that these few officers and servants of the Crown Estates Commissioners should remain qualified while all the rest of the establishment is disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 40, at end insert:
Officer of the Supreme Court within the meaning of sections one hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. —[Mr. Simon.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move in page 16, line 48, at the end to insert:
appointed under the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act, 1927".
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that we only wish to disqualify fiscals, procurator fiscals and their deputies in the sheriff courts, and not the burgh fiscals and the J.P. fiscals. The burgh fiscals and the J.P. fiscals are not disqualified at present, and there seems no reason to disqualify them.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 17, line 4, at the end to insert:
Registrar of any district of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster.
This Amendment seeks to rectify another omission. Under the Bill, we have disqualified the masters and the assistant masters of the Court of Chancery in London, but we forgot about the Count of Chancery in the County Palatine of Lancaster. The corresponding officers are the district registrars of those courts, and there are three of those whose functions are exactly the same as that of the assistant masters and masters in chancery in London. They ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 17, line 5, to leave out:
appointed for a district under" and insert" or Assistant Registrar appointed under section sixteen or section twenty-five of".
This is an omission, but not an unimportant one. As the Bill is drawn, it disqualifies the registrars in county courts. They are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The assistant registrars are also appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, which, of course, was being passed at the time that the Select Committee was sitting. That confers power on the Lord Chancellor to direct them that they shall be whole-time officers. In those circumstances, they ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 17, leave out line 8.

In page 17, line 9, leave out "Judicial Committee of the".—[Mr. Simon.]

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, In page 17, line 9, at the end to insert:
Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements.
This Amendment really speaks for itself. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act was passed while the Select Committee was sitting, and under that Act the very important post of Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements was created. In my submission, the holder of that office ought certainly to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 17, line 26, at the end to insert:
Temporary Commissioner appointed under paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Tithe Act, 1936.
Under the Bill as framed, the members of the Tithe Redemption Commission are disqualified, but they are disqualified under paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the Tithe Act, 1936. That paragraph also disqualified temporary Commissioners who are appointed by the Treasury to deputise for the permanent Commissioners for any period up to six months. It is thought that they also ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, at the end to insert:
Governor of the Isle of Wight…The Isle of Wight.
This is a Prerogative appointment which has recently been revived. The present holder is His Grace the Duke of Wellington. In times gone by the Governor of the Isle of Wight was entitled to reside in Carisbrooke Castle, but this benefit does not enure to the present holder of the Office. It seems that the Governor of the Isle of Wight ought to be subject to local disqualification in the same manner as lords lieutenants of counties.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: I offer the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) a Division on either his Amendment in page 17, to leave out lines 41 to 44, or in his next Amendment in page 18, to leave out lines 1 to 7.

Mr. C. Davies: We have already really discussed the principle of these Amendments and, as it is quite obvious that I do not carry the Committee with me, I shall not move them.
I should like to refer to one remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He seemed to think that I was emphasising the point I was making as a personal one. This was certainly not in my mind. I was putting this as a purely general matter, but speaking, of course, from my own personal experience. As it is quite obvious that I do not carry the Committee with me upon these Amendments any more than I carried the previous Committee, I propose not to move them.

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 18, line 18, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Schedule.
This is consequential upon the other Amendments which are designed to effect the general disqualification of chairmen and deputy-chairmen of the various tribunals we have discussed.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(MINISTERIAL OFFICES.)

Amendments made: In page 19, line 16, leave out "Fuel and".

In page 20, line 3, leave out "Fuel and".—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS OF THIS ACT IN RELATION TO SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS OF NORTHERN IRELAND.)

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether it would be convenient to the Committee, Sir Charles, to take all the Amendments to the Third Schedule together. They are all drafting Amendments or consequential on the Amendments made in relation to England and Scotland to bring the law into line for Northern Ireland. There has to be a separate list for Northern Ireland. Many of them are merely drafting and others are just consequential to bring matters into conformity. I do not think there is any radical alteration to which I ought to draw the Committee's attention. Might they all be taken together?

The Chairman: If that is the wish of the Committee, certainly.

Mr. Ede: There is one Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). to leave out "sub-Postmaster" in line 15, page 27.

The Chairman: An Amendment stood in his name to amend the First Schedule, in page 17, line 21, and he did not move it.

Mr. Ede: If we took them all en bloc, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, we should be including that one.

The Chairman: Very well; only Government Amendments, if that is the wish of the Committee.

Amendments made: In page 20, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 and insert:
Subsection (2) shall not apply".

In line 31, leave out "any" and insert "the".

In line 33, leave out from "Ireland" to end of line 44.

In page 21, leave out lines 1 to 6.

In line 21, leave out from "Ireland" to "is" in line 23.

In line 23, leave out from "House" to "his" in line 24.

In line 28, leave out from "House" to "his" in line 29.

In page 22, line 31, at beginning insert:
Part IV shall not apply and".

In line 31, leave out "to IV" and insert "and III".

In page 23, leave out line 15.

In line 15, at end insert:
A Medical Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted for the purposes of any such Tribunal.

In line 15, at end insert:
A Medical Board constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted for the purposes of any such Board.

In page 23, leave out line 16.

In line 28, at end insert:
A panel of Chairmen of Re-instatement Committees constituted under section forty-one of the National Service Act, 1948.

In line 35, at end insert: The Performing Right Tribunal.

In page 23, leave out line 36.

In page 24, leave out lines 16 and 17.

In line 29, after "Chairman", insert "or Reserve Chairman".

In line 35, at end insert:
Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Local Tribunal or Local Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1946.

In page 25, line 5, at end insert:
Director of the British Sugar Corporation Limited appointed by the Ministers as defined by section seventeen of the Sugar Act, 1956.

In page 26, leave out line 10.

In line 48, at end insert:
Officer or servant of the Crown Estate Commissioners.

In line 48, at end insert:
Officer of the Supreme Court within the meaning of sections one hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.

In page 27, line 2, at end insert:
Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

In line, 6, leave out
appointed for a district under
and insert:
or Assistant Registrar appointed under section sixteen or section twenty-five of.

In page 27, leave out line 9.

In line 10, leave out "Judicial Committee of the."

In line 10, at end insert:
Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements.

In page 27, leave out lines 21 to 24.

In line 28, leave out from beginning to end of Schedule.—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendments made: In page 28, line 17, column 3, leave out from "twenty-four" to end of line 20 and insert:
, twenty-five, twenty-seven and twenty-eight and section twenty-nine so far as it relates to disqualification under any enactment repealed by this Act.

In line 33, column 3, leave out "except."

In line 36, column 3, leave out "not."

In page 34, line 14, at end insert:

4&amp;5 Eliz.2. c.29.
The Dentists Act, 1956.
In the First Schedule, paragraph 7.

In page 27, line 2, at end insert:

4&amp;5 Eliz.2. c.74.
The Copyright Act, 1956.
In section twenty-three subsection (3)

—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.36 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I regret the need to detain the House for a few moments to explain what the Bill is about. It is a Bill for the reform of the law, and I suppose that means that there is matter for contention among lawyers in it, but I hope and believe that there is no party controversy about its content.
The object of the Bill is, broadly, to give effect to the recommendations in the Law Reform Committee's Third Report. There will be no controversy about the wish and need for me to express the gratitude of this House to the Members of that Committee, distinguished and busy people, who generously gave their skill and wisdom in the public service and produced a Report so clear and agreeable to read that I am reliably informed by a professor that his students have found out all about it and now use it as a textbook. Clearly, the House would think it right to congratulate the draftsman, who has performed his duty in a magnificent fashion in reducing so much matter into so brief and lucid a form.
The Bill is concerned with a limited but important branch of the common law. It deals first with the liability of the occupier of premises to visitors to those premises in respect of injury to them, and their goods due to the state of the premises; and secondly, with the liability of a landlord to his tenants' visitors in respect of injury due to the state of the premises in cases where the landlord has undertaken an obligation to maintain and repair the premises.
To explain the Bill I have, unfortunately, to recall in the broadest possible terms how the law now stands. The standard of care required of an occupier towards a visitor in these circumstances depends upon the category into which the visitor falls at law. He may be a trespasser and have no right to be there. In that case, the Bill leaves the law unchanged. The visitor may be there on the basis of a contract made between him and the occupier. It is convenient to call

that kind of visitor a contractual visitor and to talk about him in connection with Clause 5. The position of the rest of the lawful visitors is that they are either invitees or licensees, according to whether or no the occupier has a material interest in their being on the premises. The invitee is entitled to a higher standard of care and the licensee to a lower standard of care, and the difference between them is that in the case of the first the occupier has a material interest in his presence and in the case of the latter he has no material interest in his presence.
The duty of the occupier to the invitee is usually stated as the duty to use reasonable care to prevent injury to the visitor from unusual dangers of which the occupier knows or ought to know. On the other hand, his duty to the licensee is usually said to be to take reasonable care to prevent injury from concealed dangers or traps actually known to the occupier and not known to the licensee. If one states them just like that they sound distinct enough, but decided cases have produced refinements and distinctions until the edges are blurred.
To contrast the unusual danger with the concealed danger or trap has become difficult. All concealed dangers or traps are unusual dangers though some unusual dangers are not concealed dangers or traps. The dangers of which the occupier actually knows contrasted as against those which he ought to know sounds a distinction firm enough, but it has been whittled down by cases, which have imputed to the occupier actual knowledge of the danger if he had knowledge of the state of the premises which constituted the potential danger and that was all. One Lord Justice may, perhaps, be excused for having said that the distinction has now been reduced to vanishing point.
It is not only the distinctions between duties which are tiresome nowadays but the phraseology of the categories of visitors is not satisfactory to the ordinary layman.
He does not begin to understand that if one invites somebody to dinner in the ordinary social sense he is not one's invitee in law. The Committee came to the conclusion—we agree with it—that the test of the material interest of the occupier could produce odd and absurd results. There are plenty of examples in


the Report. I do not propose to weary the House with them.
An easy example is the shop. If one goes to a shop to buy the goods one is an invitee. If one goes to the shop to ask the way one is a licensee. If one goes to the shop and sees something which tempts one to buy and one buys, one is an invitee. If one asked to buy something which is not in stock one becomes an invitee. One can go into a shop as an entrant of one category to whom the occupier owes a duty of care and one can come out being in another and owed another duty of care. It is a little artificial. The same Lord Justice has described this as the morass into which the law has floundered in trying to distinguish between licensees and invitees. One of the best textbook writers describe them as profitless distinctions—an epithet which is quite good if the House will not apply it to the legal profession or examiners in law.
The Committee concluded that this distinction between invitees and licensees based on the occupier's material interest was untenable as a rational means of fixing upon the occupier a higher duty of care in one case and a lower in the other, and the Committee recommended, a recommendation we have adopted, that there should be substituted one uniform standard of care—the common duty of care owed to all persons who come upon premises at the occupier's invitation or permission expressed or implied. That duty the House will find in Clause 2 (2).
It is followed in that Clause by some examples which are designed to prevent the courts from being fettered by old cases relating to the duty to invitees. I have to draw the attention of the House to two of them because they involve changes in the law. Hon. Members occupied with the law will recall the controversy which has raged for many years about whether the occupier's duty to the invitee is discharged by giving an adequate warning, or whether he has to make the premises safe.
That was brought into some prominence by a case which the House will remember was lately decided by the House of Lords, where a workman was injured because he was working on an inadequate scaffolding provided by the defendant. He actually complained about it and it was

held that he could not recover because he had knowledge of the danger and appreciated its full significance although he had acted perfectly reasonably in going on with the job and had most certainly not accepted the risk willingly.
It seemed a very hard result, and the Bill disposes of it by Clause 2 (4, a) by indicating that
…warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe…".
The next change is in Clause 2 (4, b). It has been held that the occupier cannot escape from his liability to a visitor for injury resulting from faulty work done by an independent contractor. If the proper test is the exercise of reasonable care by the occupier, as most people think it is, that is quite absurd. We can take the example of a hydraulic lift about the maintenance and repair of which the occupier knows nothing. It is entirely reasonable for the occupier to entrust that work to an independent contractor with technical skill and knowledge.
If he does, the Bill enacts that
…the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and had taken such steps (if any) as he reasonably ought in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done.
Clause 3 deals with a case where an occupier of premises has a duty to people whom he is bound to admit to the premises as a result of a contract made with a person other than the visitor. Examples which one might choose are people who ride in a chartered aircraft where one did the chartering, or the case of the friend whom one takes to the theatre, or those many cases where the landlord remains in occupation of the means of access to some place let to a tenant, perhaps the forecourt to a shop Or the common staircase to a block of flats. It has been held with regard to people who are strangers to the contract of the occupier, for instance, visitors going up a common staircase in a block of flats, that the occupier owes the same duty to them as he does to the other party of the contract.
That might have the unfair result of limiting people's rights under the general


law, by the terms of a contract of which they have no sort of knowledge at any time. That seemed to the Committee unsatisfactory and unjust, and the Government agree. Accordingly, we invite the House to enact by Clause 3 (1) that the occupier is to owe to such persons, entering in right of a contract to which they are strangers, the same common duty of care that he owes to all lawful visitors. He cannot, by contract, restrict or exclude the common duty of care, but if by contract he has taken on towards the other party to the contract obligations more onerous than the common duty of care, he can, by contract, prevent those applying to persons other than those who are parties to the contract.
Clause 4 deals with a case of a landlord who has undertaken by the terms of the tenancy the obligation to maintain and repair the premises. The House will remember the difficulty here. He does not owe the duty to repair, which he has undertaken by the tenancy, to the tenant's visitors or to members of the tenant's family. All lawyers will recall an old case of 1906 where the wife of the tenant was injured because the floor was defective, at a time when the landlord was obliged by his contract of tenancy to maintain the floor. She was left wholely without remedy. She could not sue her husband, who was the tenant, and she had no right against the landlord. Everyone since has thought that to be an unfortunate result, although the decision may have been right. Certainly it was criticised by the Law Reform Committee. It was also criticised by the Leasehold Committee which reported in 1950, and, in effect, the Bill enacts that the landlord who has undertaken the obligation of maintaining or repairing under a tenancy shall owe a duty to such persons, as if he himself was the occupier of the premises. I am glad to say that this seems to concur with substantial justice and it avoids circuity of action.
There remains to be mentioned Clause 5. This goes back to the contractual visitor, who enters on the premises because of a contract with the occupier which entitles him to do so. In such a case the nature and extent of the occupier's standard of care may be dictated by the express terms of the contract. If it is, then this Bill leaves it dictated by those express terms. However, there are many cases where the

contract is silent; the matter is left to an implied term and, as the law now stands, there are two separate standards to be distinguished.
Broadly, in the case where a contract is one for the use of the premises, the occupier must have them as safe as reasonable care and skill on the part of anyone can make them. On the other hand, where the contract is one where the use of the premises is merely incidental to the main purpose of the contract, his duty is to take reasonable care that the premises are reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are to be used.
Since there is an immense variety of such contracts, it is obviously difficult to say sometimes into which category the contract falls, and that is productive of uncertainty. The Bill has adopted a line of thought developed by the Committee by enacting that in such circumstances the implied term should, in effect, once more be the common duty of care. I think that is the right way to deal with the problem.
I regret having to detain the House for so long at this hour but there was a great deal of matter to be explained, even in outline. I commend the Bill respectfully to the House as a useful step in the reform of the law, and I hope that the House will think it worthy of an unopposed Second Reading.

8.52 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: After full and lucid explanation of the Solicitor-General, I need only detain the House a short time. We are in complete agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly with his observations about the substance of the Report of the Law Reform Committee and, indeed, about the way in which it has been presented. I am sure that the House is extremely grateful for such an amazingly lucid exposition of some very complicated law, and also for the strong and common-sense conclusion reached in the Report.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated, this Bill deals with liability of landlords and tenants of premises for damage caused by the state of the property. The different kinds of persons with whom it deals are those who are lawfully on the premises, including, in particular, what the law calls invitees and


licensees. It does not deal with the case of trespassers, to which I will return before I sit down.
In the case of the two main categories of people lawfully on the premises to whom damage may result, there are two criticisms with which we are in complete agreement. The first is the criticism of the distinction in definition between these two categories. The sceond is the criticism of the standard of care required from these two separate categories of persons.
The first point, the distinction in definition between them, is that in the case of the invitee the test is not, as one would expect, and as the Solicitor-General pointed out, whether the person was invited to the premises or not. Far from any such commonsense definition, the test is whether or not the occupier of the premises has, of all things, a material interest in the purpose of the visit.
The result is that if a person is invited to dinner and a crash occurs, in the case of the person invited to discuss a business matter or other, a higher standard of care is required than in the case of a person who is invited merely as a guest. That is contrary to all common sense, and we agree with the criticism made of this distinction between invitees and licensees.
Then we have the different standards of care. I am not going into the definition of the different standards of care which has already been mentioned and can he referred to, if need be, in the Solicitor-General's speech. The ludicrous position of the development of the law is this. The law having spent years in making these distinctions between the invitee and licensee dependent upon the material interest upon the purpose of his visit, has then spent further years in whittling away the difference which it itself has made. At last we have got to a commonsense conclusion as the result of the Committee which was set up to consider the law about it.
Complications which have been piled on complications are not merely limited to this ludicrous distinction between invitee and licensee. We have all sorts of nice questions, as: who is an invitee and who is a licensee? Take, for instance, a person legally entitled to use premises provided for the use of the public. Take

the classical case of a public convenience. One would have thought that in the case of a public convenience the local authority which provides it had a material interest in the public using the convenience for which it has provided and, therefore, that the person who gets there would be perhaps regarded as an invitee. But not a bit of it, he is regarded as a licensee.
On the other hand, if a person is legally entitled to enter premises, such as a gas man, he is probably an invitee. If we have a person entering, under a contract, without any express reference in the contract to it, there seems to be a difference of view as to whether he is an invitee or a licensee. Certainly, if he is working in one part of the premises under contract and goes to another part of the premises not under contract, there may be a different standard applicable to him in the one case from the other.
This is really a piece of cheeseparing in the law which makes the whole position ridiculous. The measure of reform, and the approach of the Committee to the reform proposed to this ridiculous position in which the law finds itself is, we think on this side of the House, altogether admirable. What the Report says, in page 22, and lays down as the principle, is that
…any measure of reform should aim at preserving real differences while removing useless complications. …
That must be a principle which would commend itself to everybody.
It then goes on to consider the reality in these cases. It says:
…One and the same standard of care…should apply in respect to all persons lawfully upon his premises, for the duty flows from the circumstances common to all cases (i) that the occupier is in control of the premises and (ii) that the visitor is lawfully upon them.
We certainly accept that principle on this side of the House, and we are happy at the way in which this has, in general, been carried out in the provisions of the Bill itself.
There was a criticism by as great an authority as Mr. Justice Diplock, who made a dissenting report which certainly commands respect, disagreeing with the proposal put forward by the majority which now is the principle adopted in the Bill. He pointed out—and I think that lawyers particularly will have a great deal


of sympathy with his criticism—the danger of having a new series of rules defining compliance with a widely defined statutory duty. Here we have a widely defined statutory duty and we must all recognise that there is this danger of a new series of rules defining the general term and leading to what he refers to as refinements of the law.
It is by that process of refinements that we have completed the circle in the present condition of the law and led from a ludicrous start to a ludicrous end. There is a similar danger in the Bill and it ought frankly to be recognised. We should all be obliged to Mr. Justice Diplock for calling attention to that danger, because it is conceivable that under the Bill as drawn there might be refinement upon refinement which would mean that we should simply be starting another ludicrous circle such as has been completed, before the Bill came into operation and with which the Bill is designed to deal. I am sure that, in view of the history of this part of the law, that danger will not, in fact, materialise.
There are one or two criticisms, but I will limit myself to the main points that we wish to make. My hon. Friends with whom I have had an opportunity to discuss the Measure may wish to raise other points of detail and they may develop rather more fully than those which I merely propose to mention. It is as well to mention the main ones now.
The first is that we are doubtful whether all persons lawfully on the premises are covered by the Bill. We certainly consider that it would be better to have that clearly established instead of having piecemeal references. For instance, to "invitees" and "licensees", as we have in Clause 1. As far as I can see, all persons lawfully on the premises are in fact, in one way or another, covered by the Bill, but it certainly would be helpful if we could have that rather more clearly established in the Bill itself.
My second point is this. I mentioned earlier that I should refer to the question of trespassers. I wish to refer to trespassers in connection with children in particular. We are rather worried about the position of children trespassing on premises. When children trespass on premises we all know that they may become licensees in certain circumstances,

and when they become licensees then the duty with regard to them is higher than is the duty with regard to adults. A defect in the present system is that in deciding whether or not a trespasser becomes a licensee, the test which is applied is precisely the same for children as it is for adults.
The matter has been set out very clearly in page 16 of the Report, in paragraph 30. We recognise the difficulties involved. We have considered this question in some detail. It is a matter to which we shall want to refer in more detail in Committee to see whether a method may be devised of dealing with what I think is generally recognised to be a difficulty and to try to provide a solution which I hope will be rather more satisfactory than the present state of the law.
I will not mention other points of detail which we shall discuss in Committee and to which doubtless my hon. Friends will refer. We have often heard in the past judicial condemnation of Parliamentary legislation and, for Members of Parliament at any rate, it will be refreshing on this occasion to see, I will not say Parliamentary, but judicial condemnation of judge-made law. We all rejoice that on this occasion, as a result of what is largely a judges' Report, we have a solution put forward to put right this fantasy of judge-made law. It is put forward by the judges. It is accepted by Parliament and put forward by Parliament in legislation which, I hope, will not lead to any repetition of the difficulties.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Although this Bill has been so properly well-received by the House, it makes fundamental changes in the law which I practised and learned in the same places as my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and at the same time. I cannot part with the old law without one or two words of welcome for the new.
Some criticism has been made of the judge-made law. That has evolved over many years and one judge has had to take up where the previous one left off. When a Committee, comprising a large number of judges, produces such an excellent Report as has been produced by


the Law Reform Committee, one sees how their minds would have moved had they started with the question de novo.
We have that wonderful, theoretical individual, the invitee, with his first cousin, the licensee, who will be now wedded into one. In fact, they are exactly the same person upon different days and even at different minutes, and after the wedding has taken place they will be placed under the protection or definition of Clause 2. Here I wish to say how much I welcome Clause 2, but it raises a question of fact. We have to decide whether people who have been lawfully on the premises, and are occupiers, have carried out their duties as laid down by law. It would be interesting to know who is to decide that question. Is it a pure question of fact and not of law, and could we not have back the jury of twelve people to decide this question of fact?
In the course of the last few years that jury for all practical purposes has disappeared in civil cases. I believe that this is a good occasion on which it could be reintroduced, so that this question, which is one of common sense, could be decided by twelve of our fellow citizens on every occasion.
I am pleased to see that Clause 2 will reverse the decision in that very hard case to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General referred, the case of the workman who slipped off a plank, better known as Horton v. London Graving Dock. I was concerned in that case from the beginning right to the unsuccessful conclusion in the House of Lords, and I have always considered that it was a hard case, though no doubt correct in law. I am glad to think that if anything happens to a person in a similar position to Mr. Horton he will be almost certain to obtain the damages to which he is properly entitled.
Clause 3 is a very wise Clause which makes technical changes in the law. Clause 4 places a much increased liability upon landlords. I would only say—and I am here straying from the legal form of the Bill—that I hope that somehow that point will be made from this House so that those who are landlords in the strict sense of the word or in the form that they have sub-tenants, may realise their liabilities and insure against them. Otherwise, a great many citizens of this

country will find themselves faced with liabilities which they will have difficulty in meeting, if they do not find it impossible to meet them at all.
It is perhaps more of a Committee point than a point to be raised on Second Reading, but Clause 4 (6) makes somewhat of an exception and deals with the relations between the landlord and tenant. How is a person who suffers injury to know what is his position, unless there can be inserted some words whereby, when an injury takes place, he is entitled to have pre-trial discovery—I am here using loose words, and I am not suggesting the words of an Amendment—because otherwise it will be impossible for him or his advisers to know whether there is a liability on the landlord or not?
I add my wish to those of the learned Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East that this Bill will obtain a speedy Second Reading.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I, too, welcome the Bill. I read with very great interest the report of the Law Reform Committee on which the Bill is based. I hope I can say without impertinence that it was undoubtedly an excellent piece of work by a very distinguished Committee.
There is no doubt that the distinction between "invitee" and "licensee" was very artificial. That is well illustrated by the examples given in the Report. As the Solicitor-General has said, the law has now reached the stage where, from the practical point of view, the difference between invitee and licensee has largely disappeared, and it is only right that actual practice should be enacted in an Act of Parliament so that there may be no doubt in law upon the point.
The Bill recognises that there may be a contract between the parties. Of course, in these cases, the rights are governed by that contract. The Bill recognises the right of an occupier when he admits anyone to his premises to restrict or exclude liability. The rights are governed by such an arrangement. It is in the main to cover the absence of such a contract or restriction that we have the provisions of the Bill. Surely it is right, when a person lawfully goes on premises and is not a trespasser, that the occupier should owe


a duty to him in regard to the state of the premises. It is reasonable to define that duty in the way in which it is defined in the Bill. It is:
to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for 1he purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
I understand that is the "common duty of care" as set out in the Bill.
The Solicitor-General pointed out two important changes made in the Bill. One I welcome and the other I would dare to criticise. In regard to the first, as the law stands, if a visitor goes on premises and if there is notification of danger and a recognition of risk, the occupier is not liable for damages sustained. Reference was made to Horton's case, in which a man was engaged on repair work on board a ship and complained about the sufficiency of the staging. Despite promises to repair, the repairs were not effected and the workman was injured. The workman knowing the position went on working and it was held he could not recover. This was an obvious hardship. I am glad to see that that position is remedied by Clause 2 (4, a) under which a warning of that kind is not conclusive but has to be taken into account.
I criticise Clause 2 (4, b), where an alteration is made with regard to the law affecting an injured person. The alteration affects his claim adversely. The Solicitor-General pointed out that as the law stands it is no answer to a claim for the occupier to say that injury was due to the faulty work of an independent contractor. The paragraph alters the law M regard to that. It is hard upon an injured person to say that the occupier shall not be liable because the fault is due to the work of an independent contractor. The injured person may be able to sue the independent contractor, but surely the better way is to leave the position as it is. After all, an occupier who is liable may well have his remedy against the independent contractor for the faulty work. I hope that this point will he looked at again to see whether the alteration is really one which should be effected.
I am glad to see that Clause 4 does away with our old friend Cavalier v. Pope. Clearly, where a person lawfully enters premises and is injured because of a state of affairs due to the failure of the

landlord to carry out repairs, it is wrong that the right to the recovery of damages for injury should be restricted to that tenant. Even the wife or a member of the family cannot at present recover damages. The landlord must know that there is a wife or that there are members of the family who are on the premises and that other persons can come upon the premises. I am glad to see that the landlord is now made liable for injuries to such other persons for his default with regard to the state of the premises.
I am a little doubtful about the effect of Clause 4 (3). As I read that subsection, it would mean that where a tenant lets premises to a sub-tenant and it transpires that it was unlawful for him to effect such a letting—possibly discovered many years afterwards—then if the sub-tenant is injured because of the failure of the landlord to carry out repairs the subtenant cannot recover. I should have thought that it is wrong to allow a landlord to escape liability for what after all is his fault. I hope that that will be looked into.
I too am concerned a great deal about the position of children, particularly children of tender years. Where they are lawfully on premises, as in the long series of cases by tacit permission which made them licensees or otherwise, difficulty might arise in defining what is meant in Clause 2 by the duty to see that the child
will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier
to be on the premises.
Suppose a child is lawfully on the premises and there is a machine or some chattel on the premises which constitutes an allurement and the child plays with it and is injured. Obviously, he is not "invited or permitted" to be on the premises for the purpose of playing with the machine. As a learned judge said in one case, the child is not invited, for example, to slide down the banisters. May this not lend countenance to the argument that those decided cases, where it has been held that there is liability for injury to children, particularly where there was an allurement, may, after the passing of this Measure, be held not to be good law?
I appreciate that in Clause 2 (3) the draftsman has endeavoured to deal with the difficulty with regard to children. It


will be seen that in that subsection the words have been inserted:
an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults;
I venture to suggest that all the words inserted by the draftsman mean is that the duty there is to see that the child will be reasonably safe and to expect the child to be less careful, but does the subsection adequately cover liability for injury to a child in what may be called the allurement case? I personally have grave doubts whether the wording may not mean that many cases where the liability for injury to children has been recognised may not after the passing of this Bill be good in law.
I confess to an unhappy feeling about the position of children in law as trespassers. Admittedly this is a difficult problem. The Committee considered this matter and recommended no change. I appreciate that that is a very strong view, but I cannot help thinking that the decision, for example, in the case of Edwards v. the Railway Executive was a very harsh one. That was a case of a boy of nine who got on to a railway line and lost his right arm.
The evidence was that children from a neighbouring recreation ground were accustomed to break through the fence which enclosed the line. It was true that in that case the fence was repaired by the railway authorities when the break was observed, but it was held that the child could not recover because he was a trespasser. I recognise that it may be putting a heavy burden on a railway authority or other occupiers to hold them liable in cases of this kind.
I feel that one ought to recognise, however, a very great difference between cases of accidents where adults are involved and cases of accidents affecting children. An adult may well know that he is a trespasser, whereas a child of tender years does not appreciate the position. Where there is the knowledge that children are in the vicinity and are likely to trespass, surely there is a case made out for greater care to be exercised in respect of those children by the occupiers than in respect of adults.
There is the further possibility that there may be an allurement on the forbidden territory on which the child is a trespasser, and that may be a factor in

considering whether or not tacit permission to go on the land may be implied. There are cases with which I am sure the Solicitor-General is familiar, like Lynch v. Nurden and Donovan v. The Union Cartage Company, where a child climbed on a cart and was a trespasser; and in one case the claim for damages succeeded and in the other the child failed to establish liability.
I appreciate how difficult the point is and I should not be venturesome enough to say that the Committee is wrong. Obviously it ought to be recognised that too hard a burden should not be placed on occupiers, but I am sure that a great many people have the feeling that as the law stands at present consideration of children as trespassers is a matter which needs investigation. I venture to suggest that the discussion of the Bill constitutes a good opportunity to look into that matter a little more closely to see whether something can be done to deal with the position of children.
I have made certain criticisms and I hope that those points will be considered, but I join in saying what an excellent Bill this is. I, too, share the hope that it will have a very speedy passage on to the Statute Book.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I do not want to detain the House for long at this late hour. Most of the points have already been covered. I think that this is a very important Bill and on that I agree with the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). The task of the Bill, as I understand, is to strike a balance between the need for clarity and for getting rid of artificial distinctions on the one hand and, on the other, the need to take account of the innumerable varieties of liability which can arise in this branch of the law.
The Bill thus sets about the very arduous task of trying to place upon the Statute Book a clear, comparatively simple and codified system of law which is to be applicable to great varieties of circumstances. I would respectfully express the view that, by and large, that is achieved by he Bill, but I would venture to make one or two reservations about the manner in which it attempts to achieve this object.
The first reservation which I venture to make is this. Licensees and invitees


become visitors under the Bill to whom a common duty of care is owed. Less regard will have to be paid in future, therefore, to the category to which the visitor belongs. But as it diminishes the importance of the category to which the visitor belongs, the Bill, as I understand, enhances the importance of the purpose for which this visitor is invited or permitted by the occupier to be on the premises.
I think that it is rather interesting that the purposes for which a visitor is on the premises is not treated in the Bill as a circumstance
… relevant for the present purpose …
under Clause 2 (3). It is contrariwise set out as a primary element in the duty of care referred to in the previous subsection. What does that mean? As I see it, it means that out of this Bill, when it becomes law, there will develop a body of case law determining "purposes" under Clause 2 (2) which will give rise to just as many refinements, and narrow—it may be artificial—distinctions as formerly characterised the treatment of the categories of licensee and invitee.
The effect of this, of course, is important, because until this change in the law, once a visitor was placed in his appropriate category as an invitee or licensee there were clearly defined duties of care owing to these respective classes; but now, as I see it, there will be substituted for these two clearly defined duties of care to the old categories a veritable plethora of graduated duties, all within the scope of the common duty of care, but determinable by reference to the multitudinous purposes for which visitors are on premises. That general, and it may be thought somewhat venturesome, comment I would put forward as a reservation in the welcome that I give to the Bill.
A second reservation is this. In paragraph 31 of the Report of the Law Reform Committee there is posed the question whether the conventional categories are exhaustive. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned this point, but I venture to refer to it again. In that paragraph the Committee appears to doubt whether the conventional categories were exhaustive. In view of this doubt which this very distinguished Committee has placed on the record, one asks why, under the Bill, "visitors" is a term

confined to persons who would be treated at common law as licensees or invitees. Why, in other words, is not the duty expressed to be owing to any person lawfully upon premises?
As has been pointed out, a licensee on premises may become an invitee if his attention is attracted by something which the occupier has a material interest in his being attracted by. If he goes on to premises for purposes which it is explained to him are not regarded by the occupier as legitimate or proper, may he not then become equivalently something less than a licensee? I venture to think that, in view of the doubt expressed by the Committee, the Bill may err in confining the common duty of care to the two categories.
My third reservation concerns the power of the occupier to restrict or modify his duty to a visitor under Clause 2 (1). He can do this "by agreement or otherwise". These words seem far too wide. One asks what is covered by the words "or otherwise". Can a warning notice modify or exclude the common duty? It is quite likely, I should have thought, that it can. The effect of "warning" is set out in Clause 2 (4) but, on the present wording of the Clause, it seems to me likely that the court will in many cases not feel free to get as far as a consideration of the effect of subsection (4). The court may well say that the notice modifies the occupier's duty initially by the effect of Clause 2 (1)?
Another reservation that I would make is this. There was a recommendation in page 41 of the Report which dealt with the case of landlords remaining in occupation of the access to premises which were let. It covers the forecourt cases to which reference has already been made. The recommendation is that the landlord should owe the common duty of care to any third party lawfully using the access, unless a more onerous duty is imposed on the lessor by the tenancy agreement. I ask myself whether that recommendation is fully implemented by the Bill, and I very much doubt it. It will be said, I think, that it is fully implemented by the combined effect of Clause 3 (1) and (4). But in the vast majority of what we call the forecourt cases the visitors are licensees of the landlord. That, in general terms, is


borne out by the decision in the case of Jacobs v. L.C.C.
On that view of the matter, one asks why the visitors to forecourts are not regarded as sufficiently covered by the general provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. One is put on guard by the fact that this class of licensee is referred to differentially, as it were, and the wording applied to them appears to be limiting in its effect. The duty is declared in Clause 3 to be owing to persons whom the landlord is "bound to permit to enter". One asks why this is so.
I have only two very short points further to put. There appears from paragraph 80 of the Report to have been some division in the Committee on the question to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred, whether the Bill should alter the law affecting child trespassers. It is rather interesting that this very important matter appears to have been the subject of divided opinion in the Committee. By a majority it was decided that the law should be left unchanged.
The present position, as I understand, is that an occupier must refrain from any act calculated to do bodily harm to a trespasser, and this requires, as the Committee observes, no more than ordinary civilised behaviour. I ask the question which my hon. and learned Friend has just asked: is this a high enough duty in the case of a trespassing child in all circumstances? The presence of an allurement to children in a place accessible to them may aid the inference of an implied licence. There is case law supporting that proposition. One asks whether it would not have been well for this Bill to deal with the point. I think it would have been well if it had.
The final reservation which I would express is this. In Clause 2 (5) reference is made to "risks willingly accepted." I doubt whether that will be found to be a sufficiently comprehensive treatment of

the class of case which, I think, the draftsman had in mind. It merely invokes the principle of volenti. I doubt very much whether the wording of it is apt to cover the cases of visitors who, having full knowledge of a danger, are in the position that they are not entirely free to avoid it. I have in mind the line of cases represented by Clayards v. Dethick and the recent case of Riden v. Billings & Son. It is, I think, very much an open question whether that short subsection covers sufficiently and aptly all that is required in that connection.
Subject to these points of doubt, I join in welcoming the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I feel sure that the House will acquit me of discourtesy if I make no attempt to reply now to what are courteously called reservations to the welcome given to this Bill, for which I am very grateful to all hon. Members. I may, without discourtesy, call them Committee points. For my part, I look forward to discussing these matters in Committee, with a view to making the Bill, by our mutual efforts, as good a Measure as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

NURSES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Committee Tomorrow.

NURSES AGENCIES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Committee Tomorrow.

FATSTOCK (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS)

9.37 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1957, dated 12th February, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
The purpose of the Order is to give effect to tie new arrangements for calculating the guarantees for fat cattle, sheep and pigs when the next fatstock year begins on 25th March, about which my right hon. Friend gave some details to the House in November last year. Like the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1955, which it replaces, this is purely procedural. It does not state the price guarantees, nor does it define the classes of fatstock which they cover. These are matters to be determined in accordance with the 1947 Act and announced in the White Paper presented to the House following the Annual Review which is now taking place. The Order merely sets out the basis for calculating the guarantees and the general provisions as to certification and payment.
Before I set out the main details of the new proposals, I think it would he helpful if I were to remind the House of the considerations which led to the change in the system. At present, the rates of payment are worked out for each four-week period, and they are the difference between the standard price for the fatstock year and the average prices realised in the market over the preceding 52 weeks—the "rolling" average. This method of calculation has been used since decontrol of meat and livestock in 1954, and, by and large, it has worked fairly well; but last year it did prove unable to respond sufficiently quickly to the abnormally sharp and sustained decline in cattle prices, with the result that many producers were losing money and the whole prosperity of this most important side of the agricultural industry was at risk.
In order to set matters right and to avoid a substantial under-payment of the guaranteed price in the current fatstock year, it was decided to make a supplementary payment graduated in such a way as to give producers who marketed

at different seasons of the year an equitable return. The House will recall that we debated this matter last October when authority to make these payments was secured.
At that time, my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that to prevent recurrences of that kind, the new scheme would have to respond more quickly to fluctuations in market prices. This means that the rate of guarantee will fluctuate from week to week to a greater extent than hitherto, but producers' returns as a whole will approximate much more closely to the standard price. That is important. We should understand that these fluctuations can take place far more readily than previously. On the other hand, it will work to the advantage of producers in that they will get a more realistic system and will know fairly accurately in advance how payments are likely to go.
I am glad to say that the new system which is embodied in the present Order was the outcome of helpful discussions with the producers' organisations and that it has their full support.
Briefly, the changes which are to be made are, first, that the standard prices for cattle and sheep are to be varied on a seasonal scale. I am sure that that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). Thus they will reflect variations in costs and marketing. The standard price for pigs, however, will not vary seasonally but will continue to be subject to adjustment for changes in feed cost, which account for over three-quarters of the total of pig production costs.
Secondly, the weekly rate of payment for each class of fatstock will be announced in advance for each week and not for a period of four weeks, as at present; but in order that the guarantee payments shall be related as closely as practicable to current marketing experience, they will be calculated each week by reference to forward market trends as well as to recent actual market prices. The guarantee will be related to an eight-week period and the rate for any week will be the difference between the market prices—that is, four weeks' actual market prices and four weeks' estimated market prices—and, on the other hand, the standard price averaged over the eight-week period. The standard prices will be


announced after the Price review for the whole year.
To guard against sudden and unexpected price movements, in any week, we shall adjust the rate of payment, if necessary, to keep the average return for the week within prescribed limits of the weekly standard price. These stabilising limits, which will take the place of the existing stabilising limits, will be much closer to the standard prices than at present. They will be determined after the Annual Review and will be announced, together with the seasonal standard prices, as soon as the Review has been concluded.
I feel confident that the new guarantee system will be as well received by the industry as a whole as it has been by its leaders. It is designed to ensure not only that the average returns for the year will be close to the standard prices, but also that the returns in any week will not be far away from the standard price for that particular week.
I commend the Order to the House. I do not wish to dwell on it at length, but if hon. Members wish to raise any points I shall be glad, with the consent of the House, to try to answer them. I commend the Order as a fair system, as a definite improvement on the previous one and as a system which has already been welcomed by the leaders of the farming industry.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has, with commendable brevity, introduced the Order with some lucidity. It is a difficult matter to explain to the House, but he has done it in a short time in words which most of those who know something about the previous Orders will understand.
I would say that this 1957 Order is better than the scheme that was introduced in 1954. It is better than the 1955 Order and it is better than the two Amendments of 1956, but that is not saying very much, because I still regard this fatstock marketing as a fairly considerable mess.

Mr. Godber: It is getting better all the time.

Mr. Champion: It might be getting better all the time. The trouble is that under the Tories, fatstock marketing has been set free—at least, I understand that that is what they are doing. We have got back to complete simplicity and in the doing of it we have done these things.
We have set the standard prices for the collective guarantees. We have averaged our realisation prices and ascertained the producer's average return. We have introduced and abolished the individual price guarantee. We have introduced a lower and an upper guarantee limit. We have made stabilisation adjustments. We have made supplementary payments. We have fixed our guaranteed classes. We have our certifying officers and certifying centres. Now we are to estimate the price likely to be received in the four weeks commencing with the week in which the calculation is made. We have rolled our averages. We have rocked our farmers. And we have "socked" our taxpayers.
That seems to me to be a fair description of what has gone on since 1954. I find all this just about as confusing as a meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the National Farmers' Union was to a farmer who attended it and afterwards, reporting his impressions to his local branch, said of it, "It was all minimum, maximum and optimum, so I said 'Sugar 'em' and left 'em." I feel very much the same about this procession of fatstock Orders with which this House has had to deal within the past three years.
In the debate which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, on the Order of 1955, the Minister seemed anxious to impress us that he was about to give birth to a really satisfactory scheme at last. This is it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary seemed to take some pleasure in the fact that the Ministry had removed some of the difficulties. I remember pretty vividly—I was sitting on the opposite side of the House at the time—a crack by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) during the time of the Labour Government. He said it was the Labour Government who, for the first time in the history of this country, rationed bread, and that then they had the colossal cheek to take credit for abolishing the rationing of it.
I feel very much the same about this business of the Tories. The Tories created chaos in the marketing of fatstock, and now they seek to take credit for getting over some of the difficulties which there have been in all their schemes to date. It seems to me probable that they will soon be taking credit for clearing the Suez Canal they succeeded so well in blocking, de Tocqueville, the great French writer on American democracy, said:
The legislator has no more tedious task than to cure the evils which he himself has caused.
The Minister must have had a pretty tedious time just recently, and so must the Government on that principle.
The Minister never foresaw the wide movements of prices which took place and which, of course, made nonsense of the twelve months' average realisation price. Having failed to do that, he has had to bring in his amending Order in 1956, and now he has this scheme, the 1957 scheme.
There are a few questions I must ask the Minister, having made those few opening remarks. The first is this. What is the cost of this scheme to be to the taxpayer? If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary attempts to reply to that he will be in no danger of anticipating the Chancellor's Budget, for the simple reason that he does not know what it is going to cost. Nor does anybody else; nobody has a clue to what the cost of this thing will be in the next financial year. It has been suggested that the National Farmers' Union is satisfied. Even if the National Farmers' Union is satisfied after these six years of trial and error, I very much doubt whether the taxpayer can be.
The amount of the subsidy which will have to be paid out depends on all sorts of factors which are not within the control of the Government or of the taxpayer. They are, to some extent, within the control of the dealer, depending on whether his grip on the market has tightened or has slackened or on whether the rings have strengthened—and I again say that there are rings in this connection. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor was rather inclined to pooh-pooh the idea of rings in auction marts and in fatstock marketing. He did not convince me, and I am sure that he did not convince the farmers who know that these rings exist.
Therefore, all depends on the dealers and how they get together and rig the market. It will depend also on the French buyer of cattle and fatstock, and on the Italian and Dutch buyer. To some extent, it will depend on the policy of the French Government and on whether they reimpose their 30 per cent. ad valorem duty. If they do, it will affect the amount which the taxpayer will have to pay out, because it will have repercussions on the price of cattle in this country.
Has the Minister really satisfied himself that the system which is set out in the Order will ensure that this difference between the standard price, the stabilising guarantee and the average price, will not go to the dealer or in some form of subsidy to the French buyer? He ought to satisfy himself and the House on the point. I am positive that the taxpayer is prepared to ensure a prosperous farming industry, but in doing that he does not want to be paying out subsidies to all sorts of narrow groups and interests which, to some extent, are the hangers-on of this great industry.
Does the scheme make provision for adjustments if the Minister's calculations, based as they will be in part on a guess as to the movement of prices over the next four weeks, prove a long way out? What will the Minister do about adjustments in that case? If he does not find some way of making them, the producer obviously will be done out of something which the Minister had hoped to provide for him. A Bill was introduced in the House today,
to make further provision for guaranteed prices and assured markets for producers of agricultural produce in the United Kingdom …
Will that Bill again mess about with fatstock marketing, or will this Order last for some little time?
We on this side of the House are not opposing the scheme, but we shall watch with great interest this further attempt to clear up the muddle in fatstock marketing which the Government have created in the past few years.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has indicated certain weaknesses in the Order, and those which preceded it, in relation


to the marketing of fatstock. There are, obviously, weaknesses in the Government's policy. It seems to be a policy of trial and error and then error and more trial in which, as my hon. Friend so ably said, the taxpayer has to pay for the errors and the farming community often has to suffer from them.
This is essentially a weak scheme, judged against its purpose, which is claimed to be to ensure to producers of fatstock a fair price and a secure business. After all, here a long-term policy and scheme is most essential. If we are to produce cattle, it cannot be done on a year to year basis. When a scheme is altered half-way through the year, as was the present one, and when we do not know what will be the essential figures that will eventually be written into this scheme for the return to the farmers, it is not easy to say whether the scheme is a sound one. For fat cattle a long-term policy is essential, both for the price guaranteed and the facilities for handling the cattle through the markets and the slaughtering.
Paragraph 9 refers to quality premiums, but nothing has been said about them. Is it intended that they should apply to fat cattle or will we continue, year after year, paying the same subsidy per cwt. for fat cattle irrespective of the grading? There is a system of grading A, B and C. The A's are supposed to be the best, but the C's get the same subsidy per live cwt. as the A's. Nobody going to the market knows which is A, B, or C, because all the graded cattle have a C put on them.
At one time, there was one C or two or three, but under the economy system, each animal is given one C, so neither the buyer nor the seller knows at the time the grade of the animal. The Government say that the purpose of the scheme is to enable the producer to be rewarded according to the quality of his products. But when it comes to giving the subsidy, all those which are graded receive the same subsidy per cwt. up to a maximum figure.
The outstanding weakness of the Government's system of fat stock marketing is that fewer and fewer farmers are sending their cattle to be graded at the markets. I noticed in the current issue of the Farmers' Weekly that at King's Lynn

market, on 26th February, there were 550 cattle, of which 59 were uncertified. Why were 59 uncertified and sold by auction as such? Were they rejected, or had the farmers no confidence in the scheme and preferred the price which the cattle fetched by auction without the subsidy being added, thus perhaps enabling somebody else to take the subsidy afterwards?
This is important, because I have stood at our cattle auctions and have seen the animals sold. I have seen the rejected cattle come through the market and fetch a higher price than did the top graded ones. Why is that?

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Because they do not carry a subsidy.

Mr. Dye: That seems to be ridiculous. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who is supporting the Government in introducing this Order, which provides for a subsidy, says that the cattle which are sold without a subsidy, because they are not good enough, should fetch a higher price because they will not get a subsidy. I have never heard anything more crazy in my life, nor have I seen anything so crazy.
The poorest quality animals rejected by the graders are sold in the auctions at the highest price per live cwt. Why? The hon. Member for Leominster knows why, as does every other auctioneer, because it has been emphasised over and over again that these animals will not have their ears punched. In other words, the cattle which have been rejected in one market can be bought by a butcher or dealer, and either taken to another market where they will be accepted and where that person will then get the subsidy, or they can be taken to a slaughterhouse and the butcher or dealer concerned can then get the deadweight subsidy.
Why is it that we have a scheme and graders, whose job it is to certify those suitable for certification and to reject others, yet the rejected ones are not so marked that they cannot be taken to another grader and be marked for certification? If, in the case of King's Lynn, out of 550, 59—rather more than 10 per cent.—are uncertified, there must be something wrong with the system.
Here again, according to the Farmers' Weekly, I notice that at Norwich market, on 23rd February, there were no fewer


than 547 fat cattle graded but the uncertified ones, sold as fat cattle, were 174—a bigger proportion not being certified before being sold by auction. Of those that were graded, the prices are quoted as from 134s. for grade A to 150s. per cwt., but the uncertified ones are from 115s. to 163s. The same applied at King's Lynn market where certified grade A lightweights, that is, the best ones, ranged from 135s. to 150s. per cwt., and the uncertified ones from 128s. to 161s. per cwt.
I suggest to the hon. Member that there is something wrong in a system where people will give a higher price for an inferior animal and be able to sell it at a profit, and who must be drawing the subsidy at a subsequent stage. I submit that if it is possible to do that to the extent indicated, there is a flaw in the whole scheme.
I notice that the same thing happened at Chippenham and again at Exeter, as reported in the current issue of the Farmers' Weekly. We can see it in every market report in the local newspapers of the country. This has been going on for two and a half years and the Government have turned a blind eye to it. Why have they done that for so long? Why did not they safeguard the amount of money the public has to pay in subsidies? If it is based on a true system of certification, the Government ought to have stopped this other business long ago. I ask the Government whether they will stop it, and what is the intention of quality premiums referred to in Article 9. Do they intend, in the coming year, to give a higher subsidy per cwt. for better quality cattle, or are we to continue with the scheme as at present?
I would also ask whether it is the intention of the Government to go on subsidising fat cattle for export. Cattle are going to our markets, being certified and purchased by foreign buyers for export to the Continent. Is that to continue? Is that part of the planned system, or is it something which just happens according to the whims or the wants of the purchasers from the Continent?
We ought to know that, because I do not think that it was ever originally intended that the system of subsidy should be to enable people on the Continent to buy British subsidised beef. It is not a big proportion of our home produce and neither does it affect very much the

general average price of our home products. What, of course, affects the market price of our fat cattle more than anything else is the quantity of Argentine beef which is imported from week to week and month to month. That determines the price and the amount of subsidy which the taxpayer has to find.
If only the Government would control imports of Argentine and other beef we could soon reduce the amount of subsidy which has to be paid under the fatstock scheme. With all the arrangements for prices and subsidies, we are hampered because we have not the proper facilities to deal with fatstock after it leaves the farm. We have not the proper facilities at the certifying centres, in the markets or the slaughterhouses.
While we continue to build bigger and faster ships to bring Argentine beef to this country, the Government absolutely prohibit the expenditure of any money for the improvement of our markets or slaughterhouses so that a greater quantity of home-produced cattle can be properly handled and prepared for the housewife.
The Government are preventing the proper handling of our home produce and not letting the consumer have the better quality article at a reasonable price. We have not got the proper facilities, but we are enabling the shipping companies and the importers to modernise all their equipment and thus import more meat with greater efficiency than the home producer can apply in sending his meat to the consumer.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Before I deal with the Order itself, I should like to say a few words about the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). Although he is a farmer, he obviously does not know much about market conditions. Let me deal first with the question of uncertified cattle which make more per hundredweight than those which are certified. It is obvious that it should be so. The taxpayer has not paid any subsidy on those cattle which are not subsidised. They are not earmarked, and the result is that the cattle which are not accepted for slaughter can be bought by farmers who will feed them up to the stage when they will be entitled to bring them back to the market and get the subsidy and be earmarked.
If the hon. Gentleman likes to compare prices when uncertified cattle are in the market on the same day as store cattle, he will find that the store cattle and uncertified cattle make £2 to 50s. a hundredweight more than fat cattle. If cattle are not punched they can still get the subsidy if they are made sufficiently good. The taxpayer does not pay twice but only once—when the cattle are certified and punched. The hon. Member tried to raise a mare's-nest.

Mr. Dye: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not say that the selling of rejected cattle marked with a cross at a higher price than graded cattle can be a mare's-nest? He knows that this has been going on for quite a long time and that the people who purchase are the people who draw the subsidy.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman does not understand. A beast marked with a cross in the market is not certified. Therefore, it can be bought by a farmer, taken away and fed until it reaches a condition in which it will be certified, when it will get the subsidy and be punched. That is the point.
The hon. Member spoke of the sale of subsidised cattle to the Continent. A very small number is concerned, but this export has this effect. Although some of the cattle are subsidised when they are sold to the Continent, this export helps to raise the price of cattle in this country, and, therefore, the taxpayer is not called upon to pay quite such a big deficiency payment as he would have had to pay if the cattle had remained on the market here and thus lowered the price further.
There is also the question of imported cattle, and I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West would take steps to regulate the imports. I suppose he would achieve that by a quota. But the obvious result of limiting the importation of Argentine beef into this country would be to raise the price of beef to the consumer. Is that what the hon. Member is advocating?

Mr. Dye: We could not get it any higher than it has been during the last twelve months.

Mr. Baldwin: Argentine beef has been coming in at a low figure and the hon.

Member desires to limit the importation of Argentine beef, so that, obviously, the consumer would have to pay more.
I have a better solution; certainly it is better from the point of view of the taxpayer. I would put a tariff on imported beef so as to get some money into the "kitty" to enable the Treasury to pay out more to the farmer by way of a guaranteed price. If it is worth while to send the beef to our market, let the Argentine producers pay a toll for the privilege.
I wish now to say a word about the Bill. I am glad to hear that the rolling average has been abolished. Some of us can claim that we attacked that system from the start. It has been said that the producers' representatives are satisfied with the present arrangement, but that does not necessarily mean that the present arrangement is right. The producers' representatives agreed with the 52-week rolling average which resulted in an absolute muddle, and it was not possible for the Government to pay the guaranteed price to the farmer on a single occasion.
Although we have done away with the 52-week rolling average, we still have the rolling average on the month that has gone by, plus what somebody guesses will be the figure for the month ahead. The job of the producer is enough of a gamble today without having that added to it. It is not much use taking up the time of the House talking about this tonight, because this Order will be passed and we shall have to see how it works. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the fatstock deficiency payment is not dealt with in the same way as the wheat deficiency payment.
When he fetches his wheat out of the harvest fields in the autumn and stores it, the farmer knows approximately what price he will get for it in the months that lie ahead. If he holds it until the spring, he can get £4 to £5 per ton more than was the price when he put it in the silo in the autumn. He knows approximately what he will get when he sells. If he sells in the period of two months, the average price of sales during those two months will be decided, and the deficiency payment will be paid to the man who sold his corn in that period. It is not based on what someone guessed


would be the price for the next month, or on what the price has been for the month which has passed. It will be based on actual receipts, and I do not think we want anything better than that.
I know that it has been said that producers representatives have agreed to this proposed system, but I have some contact with farmers, with people who may be termed the "rank and file" farmers. I guarantee that if one spoke to half-a-dozen of them at market and explained to them what this Order really means, they would agree that the wheat scheme is a much better way to deal with it than going by guesswork. I shall be interested to see what will be the effect of this Order.
May I remind my hon. Friend of the prices for the month after Christmas compared with the month before Christmas. Had this scheme been working at that period, it would be interesting to note what the people who have to make guesses about prices for the months ahead estimated would be the price for January. Anyone in the trade knows that the price for January went sky-high compared with that for December. I am sure that if any of us had been making a guess at the price for January we should not have put it at anything like the figure which it proved to be. Some consumers will not be paid what they are entitled to.
I would ask my hon. Friend how he will deal with this guaranteed price? Is it to be a seasonal figure for each week? Is the farmer to be told weeks ahead what the guaranteed price for his produce is to be? He will want to know for his meat, as he knows for his wheat, what figure he will get if he produces his beef at a certain period of the year. It would be much better if the guaranteed price, agreed at the Annual Price Review, were split up, perhaps into monthly or two-monthly seasonal prices, ranging from £6 in the autumn, which is the low cost period, to £8 or £8 10s. at the end of the winter, when it costs very much more money to feed the cattle.
If the farmer knows that, he can put the cattle into the yards to feed them, and he knows what price to give for his store cattle before he starts to feed them. He will have a little knowledge of what he is going to get. If the price is not dealt with on a yearly basis the farmer will not

know from week to week what he is to get. It would be much better, when the guaranteed price is arranged, for the seasonal average to be spread throughout the year so that farmers would have some idea of what they will receive.
I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), who raised the old bogey about rings in the market and so on and so on. He knows perfectly well that farmers need not bring one single beast into the market and face any ring. All they need to do is to send the beasts to the Fatstock Corporation and get paid for them on a dead-weight basis. The hon. Member can take that bogey clean out of his mind and not let us hear about it again. If there is all this ringing going on in the market, it is strange that the markets have got any cattle at all.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West made another statement which is completely wrong in saying that nothing had been done in the improvement of markets and slaughterhouses. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on markets and slaughterhouses in the last twelve months. In my county town, Hereford, we have a market which is something of which we can justly be proud. It has cost about £70,000. To say that markets and slaughterhouses have not been improved is absolutely wrong. The improvement is going on all over Britain.

Mr. Dye: There is a complete embargo on any new scheme to build a market. I have been to the Ministry of Agriculture only today with a deputation from East Dereham, which wants to improve its market. The scheme to which the hon. Member refers was approved long before the credit squeeze.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Hereford Markets Committee spent this money, and the market has only been opened about two or three months. It has just been completed. If gentlemen in the part of the world represented by the hon. Member are not up to getting their markets improved it is about time they woke up.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I have been very generous. Hon. Members are going very wide of the Order now. The present discussion has nothing to do with the Order.

Mr. Baldwin: I thought that if a point was raised in debate the speaker following was entitled to reply to it. That remark was made in the debate, and I have just replied to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point has been fully replied to now.

Mr. Baldwin: I hope it has been effectively replied to. I will not take up the time of the House any longer. I shall watch this scheme very carefully. My hon. Friend must not mind if I criticise him at some future date if I find the scheme is all wrong.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who has very much lightened my task by the very adequate replies that he has made, in many respects, to the questions that have been put to me.
However, I shall try to fill one or two of the small gaps which are left. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), after his opening gambit, which I shall not bother to go into—it was good, clean knock-about stuff, and I do not complain about it—asked when he got down to the real question, the cost of the scheme to the taxpayer. He immediately followed that by saying that, of course, I could not answer it, so he will not expect me to do so; but in fact the estimated cost of the fatstock scheme over the year just ended was £74 million in the form of subsidy. There is no reason to believe that under this system it would be any higher than under the previous system.

Mr. Dye: We had a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Godber: We had a Supplementary Estimate, but I think it is not very much greater for fatstock than the original Estimate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster dealt with some vigour with the question of rings. I would remind hon. Members opposite that when we first allowed fatstock through the markets again my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that the markets would be watched throughout the country and that if in any the price was artificially low—below the average over the country—there would be risk of their losing their licences and

being unable to operate. That is a fairly strong safeguard to ensure that in any particular market there is no system of rings which would artificially control the price. We keep a watch on these things and, in addition, animals could go for dead weight through the F.M.C. I think that there are two useful safeguards there.
As to the subsidy going, as I think the hon. Member said, to the French buyer, we should be clear that the very large bulk of animals which have been exported to the Continent have, in fact, been old fat cows, which, of course, carry no subsidy whatever. Admittedly there have been a few cattle, but a very small proportion, which have carried a subsidy. In the main, they have been overweight cattle for which there is small demand in this country. The Exchequer has been helped by the fact that they have been taken off the market. Otherwise, they would have depressed the market more and made the total subsidy payment greater. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything wrong from the economic point of view, although, from the humanitarian point of view, we are looking into that question very carefully and a committee is considering it.
The hon. Member mentioned the new Bill which is coming along. He asked whether it would "mess about with fatstock marketing". I think those were his words. The new Bill will be available to hon. Members tomorrow morning. I cannot comment on it very much, but I do not think that the hon. Member need have any fears about it. Briefly, it will implement the White Paper of last November and there is nothing to harm the position. He should be well satisfied with it.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) asked a number of questions, most of which have been answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster. He said that a long-term policy is required for cattle and I could not agree more. It is a very long-term project if one is to fatten cattle. I should say that the new long-term guarantees that we have given will be of great assurance to cattle breeders. I hope very much that they will encourage breeders to go ahead with their plans.
The hon. Member also mentioned paragraph 9, dealing with quality premiums. That is there in case we should wish to


introduce anything of this kind; it makes it possible for us to do so. I cannot say much more on it at the moment, but, clearly, it is done so that at some stage we could follow the point he raised about improving quality.
The hon. Member gave the House a number of details about King's Lynn and Norwich markets. I shall gladly look into those, but these cattle are, in many cases taken away and fattened on by other breeders.

Mr. Dye: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that, because it is not so.

Mr. Godber: I should have thought that it was true in some cases, but, as I have said, I will see whether there is any substance in it. We have been keeping a fairly careful check and my advice is that there is very little abuse.

Mr. Dye: Surely those which are rejected as being unsuitable should be marked as such. Will the Minister consider that?

Mr. Godber: Surely the farmer has the right to take them away again and improve them by fattening on in such a way that they can be offered again. No subsidy has been paid. That method will produce a better article for the consumer in the long run and I should have thought it was reasonable.
The hon. Member wishes to control Argentine imports, but I think we must get the question of Argentine imports in proper perspective. The imports from the Argentine are still substantially below what they were before the war. The consumption per head of beef in this country is only slightly above what it was before the war and it would be wrong to deny to the consumer an adequate supply of beef. We want to safeguard our home producers, but we must also think of the consumers, and in that respect it is important to keep these imports in proper perspective. While Argentine imports are only two-thirds of the pre-war figure, it is not reasonable to do what the hon. Member suggests.
The hon. Member also asked about expenditure on slaughterhouses. We hope in due course to introduce a Bill on slaughterhouses and we are anxious to go ahead with a scheme for the whole country. When the Bill is introduced, I

think that the hon. Member should be satisfied on that point. We are very conscious of the need for improvement in slaughterhouse facilities all over the country and we will certainly do what we can in this respect.
In addition to answering points from the other side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster raised one or two points of his own. He was anxious to see a tariff on imported beef. I think the same argument applies as that which I have used to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, but it is a matter which we shall keep constantly under review, and, if need be, we can certainly look at the position again.
My hon. Friend wanted to introduce the same system as that used for the wheat deficiency payment. I think we must get this straight. In fact, that system would not be advantageous for fatstock. There are several reasons why it is not so good, and I will mention one or two of them very briefly. First, producers would have to wait until the end of the guarantee period for payment to be made, and for some of the smaller producers that would be a real burden. The actual rate of the guarantee payment would remain unknown until the end of the guarantee period, and uncertainty about the size of the payment might have a seriously disturbing effect upon the market, especially the market in store cattle.
Further, uncertainty about the rate of the guarantee payment would put at a disadvantage those organisations which trade on a grade and deadweight basis; it would be unfair for us to differentiate in any way in our payments against one particular method of sale. For these reasons and for others, too, I do not think that we can introduce the system for which he asked.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the weekly standard prices and wanted to know whether they would be available for the year ahead. The answer is that as soon as the new figures are published after the present price review is over, weekly figures will be published for the whole year ahead, but it must be remembered that we shall take the average of eight weeks for the purpose of arriving at the rate of guarantee payments. I


think it will be fairly easy for producers to understand, and I do not envisage any real difficulty. I have tried to deal with the questions that have been asked and to which I hope I have been able to give adequate answers. I therefore ask the House to pass this Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1957, dated 12th February, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

TREASURE TROVE, CONGLETON (EXHIBITION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

10.31 p.m.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I am indebted to Mr. Speaker for allowing me to raise on the Adjournment this matter concerning the finding of eighteen gold coins at Congleton. It was on 12th September last year that a Mr. Machin, while carrying out alterations to his house, found these eighteen gold coins in a wall at 12, Moody Street, Congleton. The find caused great excitement locally, and the following day the coins were handed over to Mr. Lionel Head, Editor of the Congleton Chronicle, who obtained confirmation of their value—something like £300.
On 24th September, twelve days later, Mr. Head received a letter from a Mr. Thompson, Curator of the Grosvenor Museum, Chester. I will not bore the House by reading the whole letter; I will just read two extracts from it. In the letter Mr. Thompson said:
Although I cannot commit my museum, I feel sure that we ought to make efforts to secure at least two of the coins here.
He went on to say that if the coins should be declared treasure trove, Mr. Machin would have a note of their feelings and would perhaps bear them in mind when a decision was taken about the disposal of the coins. He concluded:
I have not the slightest wish to usurp your own claims to any that you may like to acquire for display in Congleton itself, and no doubt we can come to some amicable agreement.

A very friendly letter, and if it had been lived up to all would have been well in Cheshire. But it did not work out like that. It seems to me that, in the first place, Mr. Thompson had no objection to splitting the find for his own benefit. Secondly, he recognised that Congleton had a valid claim to some of the coins, and, thirdly, he mentioned his intention to secure the help of Mr. Dolley of the Department of Coins of the British Museum.
Then the story goes on to 10th October, when an inquest was held by Mr. Daniel, Her Majesty's Coroner, at Congleton. The coins consisted of seven James I "Laurels" and eleven Charles I "Unites". They were declared to be treasure trove and taken and seized into Her Majesty's hands.
After the inquest, the Mayor and Mr. Head talked with Mr. Thompson, who said nothing at all about acquiring all the coins for the Grosvenor Museum. On the contrary, he offered to help secure some of the coins for Congleton. They were then in the hands of the British Museum which would help as to their disposal.
On the same day, 10th October, the Mayor wrote to the Treasury—before my hon. Friend took over—and to the British Museum about the disposal of the coins. On 15th October, Mr. Walker, Keeper of the Department of Coins at the British Museum, replied that if the coins were not kept by the British Museum they would be sold to a local museum. He said:
No doubt I can arrange for this to be done in your case.
There is a little ambiguity about this. Unfortunately, I have not got the letter in question, but on 23rd November, having heard nothing further, the Mayor again wrote to the Treasury. My hon. Friend deals with the letter in a more expeditious manner than happened in the autumn. On 8th December, Mr. Head, the Editor of the newspaper, and Mr. Hibbert visited the British Museum and were actually shown the coins. They were told by two officials—I have not got their names—that there was nothing whatsoever to prevent Congleton acquiring some of the coins. I am sure that Mr. Head would not have put this into writing to me if it had not happened. It


was said that it would be a shame if the borough did not have any.
Again, on 12th December, the Treasury wrote that the coins to be sold were to be sold to the Chester Museum in order to keep the find intact:
When the transaction is completed and the coins handed over, then we suggest that you should approach Chester who, we feel sure, will give sympathetic consideration to your request.
The Mayor of Congleton followed up by writing to the Mayor of Chester to ask for two or more of the coins to be sold to him for display in Congleton. On 30th December, having received no reply from Chester, he wrote also to the British Museum, offering to buy them all for Congleton, and saying that the money was available by public subscription to enable this to be carried out.
Mr. Thompson telephoned the Mayor and said that all the coins were to be bought by the Grosvenor Museum for £180, and that the money was to be raised by public subscription, including a donation from the Victoria and Albert Museum. He further said that none would be sold to Congleton because, in the first place, to sell two would spoil the find, and in the second place, if dispersed, the coins would not be available for examination by numismatists.
Incidentally, there are many such coins in the British Museum, so there is no shortage of these valuable coins. He also said that Chester wanted them all for a Civil War Museum which it was forming in the King Charles Tower there. I should have thought that if they wanted them there they could have borrowed them for a special display, or at least some of them, but they wanted the lot. He said that they had changed their minds about letting Congleton have any of the coins.
The Mayor of Congleton then wrote to the Mayor of Chester asking for his fraternal co-operation, and the Mayor of Chester replied saying that he would put the matter to the Museum Subcommittee. On 6th January, the Mayor of Congleton wrote a letter to Mr. Walker at the British Museum voicing a strong protest at his action, and received from Mr. Walker a letter on 10th January rejecting the protest because Congleton had no rights in the matter.
Congleton is not big—it has an electorate of some 15,000 or 16,000—but it is old. It received its charter in 1272, and the people there have a great pride in their civic affairs. It seems to me that they have had a very raw deal and very rough treatment, at least at the hands of Mr. Thompson of Chester, who gave it in writing that he saw no objection to Congleton having some of the coins.
In his letter, Mr. Walker said:
There is nothing in the Treasure Trove Regulations stating that a find must be sold in its entirety, and, in fact, in most cases of Treasure Trove the coins are sold in lots to various museums that are interested, though in many cases it is advisable to keep a hoard intact.
I understand that. In fact, one of the reasons put forward for the refusal is that there are no facilities at Congleton where the coins could be safely displayed. If that is so, why did Chester offer to loan the coins, or some of them, to Congleton for three or six months? It would be a risk. It is said that Congleton has not a museum. It is true that Congleton is not a rich borough, but it has a public library with adequtae facilities, and there is a small museum attached. Or the coins could be put in the town hall and secured in the safe over night. The money is available to purchase at least four coins, as I have already stated.
I may say that an ancestor of Her Majesty lived in Moody Hall, opposite the small house where the coins were found, and there is good reason why some of these coins should be on show in the borough. I see my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) is present. I do not know whether he would like to give me the benefit of his support. It would be a great help if the two boroughs were to get together to bring this matter to a happy conclusion.
We do not want to quarrel with Chester about this, but there is great indignation among my constituents. Petitions are being prepared—I do not know if the people know what happens to petitions when they get here—and I would not be bringing this matter to the House unless my constituents felt very strongly indeed. I hope that my hon. Friend will go some way to see if this matter cannot be adjusted.

10.40 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has set out the salient dates and facts in this rather remarkable history of the Congleton hoard of gold coins of the early Stuart period, and there is no need for me to go over that ground again. He has told the House quite correctly that this hoard was found by Her Majesty's coroner to be treasure trove and, therefore, its ownership to vest in the Crown. It was, therefore, clear from that moment onwards that the finder, the borough in which the coins were found and the county in which they were found, had no claim of right upon them but that the ownership vested in the Crown.
There is a settled mode of procedure in these cases of treasure trove of hoards of coins, and that is that they should in the first place be offered to the National Collection, the British Museum. I think probably no hon. Member would doubt that that is the correct and reasonable course. If, however, the National Collection does not find that it needs to add the treasure trove to its own collection, then its advice is followed by the Crown in disposing of the treasure.
In this instance it was the advice of the British Museum that the collection should be offered as a whole to the Grosvenor Museum in Chester, and the grounds given for that advice were that in this case—clearly it does not happen in all cases—it was desirable that the hoard should be kept together for purposes of research, that the fact of which coins had been found together in these circumstances could be of historical and numismatic importance. They therefore advised that in this instance the collection should not be broken up but that it should be sold entire to a local museum, the Grosvenor Museum in Chester, which already has an important coin collection.
I feel that my hon. and gallant Friend would agree with me in saying that in a

matter like this the Crown must obviously be guided by expert advice. I am no numismatist, and my hon. and gallant Friend is no numismatist, and we cannot say whether the advice in this case was sound and that the hoard should be kept as a whole. But clearly in these matters the best expert advice must be followed, and it was the best expert advice that it was desirable that the collection as a whole should be kept together and, preferably, in the County of Chester in which the hoard had been found.
It is in those circumstances that these coins which were found in Congleton in September last have passed into the ownership of the Grosvenor Museum, Chester. I am sorry if at any stage misunderstanding has arisen between the British Museum and the civic authorities of Congleton, either as to the advice which the Museum would tender, or as to the position in regard to treasure trove. But we have to take the position now as we find it, and that is that the hoard is the property of the Grosvenor Museum.
My hon. and gallant Friend urged me to do what I could to bring this matter to a happy conclusion. Clearly there is nothing which I can do directly, since the coins are no longer the property of the Crown but have been sold to the Museum in Chester. But I would make this suggestion, that it surely should not be impossible for the museum in the county town to find some way of reasonably satisfying the very natural wish of the inhabitants of Congleton that they should be able to see either some or all of the coins which in such curious and remarkable circumstances were found in their own borough. So, although Congleton has no claim of right in this matter, I would hope that a happy conclusion would be arrived at by an amicable agreement between Congleton and the Grosvenor Museum.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.